Contraception - 2-26-2012 - part two

(ed. caveat: there is no reason to attempt a true discussion of the matter at hand unless one avoids employing colorful euphemisms and politically correct terminology. This subject requires frank and direct language and thus it is used as required – if you are overly sensitive, please find something else to occupy your time other than reading this blog)

The hue and cry over the ongoing contraception debate within the national body politic is an example of reflexive political correctness hysteria run amok. The real issues have been ignored and obfuscated to the point of distraction by intellectual lightweights interested not in true public policy, but rather with an eye to securing a place at the table of power, never understanding that all power and fame is fleeting to those who would treat it in such a cavalier manner.

To wit:

Consider the fact that somehow rape has been introduced into the aforementioned national discussion revolving around the voluntary process of employing contraceptive methodologies. Rape is not about sex; rape is a physical assault, an act of violence. We as a nation should be outraged that our elected officials have opted to entangle and intertwine this crime with the debate on health care. A victim of rape has as much to do with the subject of contraception in the form of a ‘morning after pill’ as a naval base has being designed for the city of Denver; to tie the crime of rape to contraception is nothing more than adding another level of assault upon the victim. The issue of rape and incest should be dealt with within the realm of the criminal courts, with an eye to inflicting a more appropriate penalty to the perpetrator; the victim is issued a lifetime sentence dealing with  the trauma – the same should hold for the assailant, with the added guarantee of castration to guarantee that the crime can never be repeated by the now soprano  criminal. The diminishing recognition that rape and incest are violent, heinous, vicious attacks has allowed the weak of political mind to casually group such crimes with ‘women’s health’. The American electorate should demand of their local officials to legislate harsher penalties, preferably as delineated above, to help secure some manner of preemptive protection for the public, and some attempt to provide justice to the victims.

Once rape and incest are properly removed from the subject of contraception, the issue becomes one of responsibility and rights. It strikes an odd chord that the media and certain public officials seem so comfortable equating contraception as inclusive solely with women’s health rights. When last it was examined, conception cannot take place without two consenting members of each required gender. The fact therefore that the issue of contraception has become part of the discussion of women’s reproductive rights seems to imply that the responsibility for addressing the responsibilities for birth control lies solely with the woman; is it not a matter of mutual consent?

The reality is that ‘reproductive rights’ is the new politically correct euphemism for abortion.

There are issues of conscience and morality involved with the subject of abortion and thus by definition should be kept out of the governmental discourse of the subject. With that point being made, however, there are matters of public policy that do in fact need to be addressed as part of the overall reality of the contraception debate.

Consider this  all too familiar scenario:

Lady A is impregnated as matter of mutual consent, or as a result of combined poor planning, by Gentleman B. If the political point is to be understood by those who group such matters into ‘women’s health’, the woman has the sole responsibility to decide whether she opts to have the pregnancy brought to term. “Brought to term’ is one side of the debates description of the issue; the opposing side chooses to describe it as the birth of a baby.

These are the lines of demarcation in the debate; it’s becoming accepted as merely a matter of semantics.

If Lady A decides to terminate her pregnancy, Gentleman B is considered by some as to have no say in the woman’s decision relative to her ‘reproductive rights’. Any attempt by Gentleman B to assert any level of input into the decision is derided by many of a political slant as being an infringement on a woman’s’ ‘right to choose’ – it is her body and she should have sole say into any decision affecting that body.

If Lady A decides to bring the baby to term, society now requires that Gentleman B provide financial support for the child and the mother until the child reaches the age of eighteen. He has no say in this decision either, as again it is the woman’s ‘right’ to decide what she does; Gentleman B is merely an appendage to that thought process.

These two apparently accepted principles are in direct conflict with each other, yet neither the mass media not the political class that accepts this as axiom chooses to fully comprehend that fact.

How does one have no say in what their fiscal responsibilities will be, and should Gentleman B opt to vanish from his public policy stated responsibilities, it is the public at large who is then charged with supporting that child for the next two decades.

Understand and be clear of the point being made here: any and all questions of morality and conscience have been removed as to avoid the aura of hysteria currently surrounding these questions within the body politic. It is essential to have this national debate absent any position of moral responsibility; once that Rubicon is crossed, the United States of America will transform itself into nothing more than a theocracy of any given current majority.

So the debate further extends to the nebulous and ridiculous of the choice between right and responsibility. The arc of the debate as being currently framed by the political extremes, leads us inexorably towards a point that has no location on any map of reality. The ‘right’ of ‘reproductive health’ by definition gives consent to it apparently to being a right solely held by Lady A in our example. Gentleman B is nothing more than a vessel, both for procreation and financial sustenance; his voice is silenced by those who feel that the male of the species have no viable existence in the conception and raising of their young. There is no comparable narrative with which to point out the absurdity, arrogance and intellectual dishonesty of such perceptions put into governmental action.

There can be no right without any corresponding responsibility; democracy, as does nature, abhors a vacuum; the belief that there can be action without consequence is folly. The argument is being made that the choice of contraception is a reasoned approach to accepting responsibility of an action. The reality remains that said choice should remain solely to the individual; there should be no public, or governmental involvement in the choice, or financial subsidy attached.

The hypocrisy involved with the inherent conflict of these arguments in staggering in scope. There is widespread outcry that the government has no business being involved in the bedrooms of the electorate; the chorus of the political elite of the entire political spectrum is heard clear and strong on that point.

It appears, however, that such a salient argument only holds when the attempt is made by the opposing political force to imbue their version of morality and conscience choice into an issue that the body politic has no business injecting itself in; the adage that holds what’s good for the goose is good for the gander - but the rights of what’s good are by political fiat held solely by the goose.

This debate must be taken as a whole if America is to address issues of abortion, contraceptive rights, reproductive rights, and whatever terminology the intellectual lightweights involved in the issue decide is the term of the month to describe the legislation of human sexuality.

The summation of this argumentative framework is thus:

- Rape is a violent crime of assault and must be treated apart from any discussion of consensual sexual interaction.

- Morality and conscious, while major imperatives in a personal decision making process, must be removed from the public debate, for at its heart it requires one to understand the machinations of another’s mind, and that is never a quality starting point for a rational debate.

- It takes two to conceive, or to opt not to conceive – each party has rights and responsibilities within that decision; society at large must determine what the boundaries and limitations of those should be.

-  Poor planning should not result in the public picking up the tab for one’s passion – abstinence should not be considered an unacceptable option.

Unless a reasoned framework is employed to debate the issue, America is slated to follow in the footsteps of other societies and civilizations that opted for a policy that everything is acceptable. It is not, but the boundaries of responsibility must be decided by the electorate, not by those who will say only what they believe to be of greater self interest to secure positions of political power.

Our posterity, should it be allowed to arrive, deserves no less.

Contraception - 2-19-2012 - part one

There occurs from time to time a convergence of particular realities that demonstrate the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of intransient political dogma; the appearance of light when all that is evident is nothing more than the heat generated by the blather of idiocy.

The recent nonsense of the contraception debate performs the exact function as stated above.

The Madison Conservative will discuss the inherent flaws in the actual positions taken by both political extremes in a later post; the more immediate concern is to provide a particular insight into the twisted logic of those vying for political power at the expense of American democracy.

Consider the following.

In  what was heralded by certain media flacks as a concession to specific religious organizations  objections over the mandate that the aforementioned  groups must ignore issues of conscious, not to mention fundamental tenets of their theology, the President of the United States announced that those groups would not need to fund the costs of providing contraception. He stated unambiguously that the costs associated with that particular service would be fully borne by the insurance companies.

This is remarkable both in the scope of arrogance and the breadth of executive fiat. This simple decision should concern freedom loving people across this nation.

To understand the danger of such executive mandate, the issue needs to be broken down into its several components. This blog will attempt to do that, addressing the aforementioned parts in no particular order of significance, as all the relevant issues bear equal importance and significance.

The constitutionality of the presidents’ signature domestic legislation, derided by some as “ObamaCare”, lauded by others as the “health care Insurance Reform Act” is at the core of the concerns. If the Supreme Court finds that indeed the individual mandate is constitutional, this president and future presidents of varying political lineage will be able to announce that private business, companies that are not part of government but provide a service to the public, will now do the bidding of the government, under the heading of whatever the topic, that it falls under the banner of ‘healthcare’. There is little in daily life that could not be attributable to ones health, from the manner of their transportation, to their individual diet, to the materials used in home décor. The ability of the government to regulate and control aspects of a citizens ‘ life, for what is euphemistically noted as being ‘for their own good’ strikes at the heart of American independence and individuality, the American sense of self. 

The United States Constitution is a restriction on the rights and powers of the government, designed specifically to allow for the individual to decide how they would opt to live their life. A nation that is tethered to the political vision of a president is not democracy, but rather tyranny. The ability for a president to unilaterally decide how private business will conduct itself, “for the common good” is nothing short of a third world dictatorship, bumped up to super power status.

The belief that removing the financial burden from an issue of conscious is simultaneously arrogant and stupid, no easy feat, and speaks volumes to those who see an issue in that simplistic a light.

There are many private, religious entities that self-insure; how do they provide coverage for issues that they fundamentally disagree with. The argument that such entities take federal monies and so must follow governmental edict is ignorant. The logic would then follow that if there were a federal guideline for gay marriage, churches would be forced to provide clergy to perform the ceremony. Any objections would be dismissed with the clarification that the church would be financially compensated for the service. Where then would the line exist between freedom of religion and the power of the state to ignore that right based solely on the premise of the ‘public good’ and the perceived power of the dollar.

It might behoove certain parties in this public debate of imbecility to brush up on their King James editions.

This entire spectacle is claimed to be centered on the ‘right’ of contraception, and that either one is fully supportive of contraception as a health right, or one is a Neanderthal low brow who would prefer women have no access to any level of healthcare.

As noted above, the Madison Conservative will address the specific salient point in a later blog; for now the theater of the political absurd is the issue.

The absence of intelligent dialogue should be troubling to the electorate at large. The speed and ease with which particular issues are granted the status of a convoluted constitutional ‘right’ is breathtaking.

The American mindset knows instinctively that there is no ‘right’ without an accompanying responsibility. The right to vote is secured only through the responsibility of civic action at the ballot box.

The right to freedom of speech is only garnered through the responsibility to defend that right for those whose speech is anathema to all you hold close and dear. The right for a redress of your grievances to the government comes with the responsibility to do so in a peaceful assembly.

The ‘right’ of contraception does not carry with it any announced corresponding responsibility, and so cannot be considered a ‘right’.

There is a place for such medical applications, and those will be discussed within the framework of a blog focused on the debate on health care.

In the interim, however, the body politic should take two aspirin, lie down, and wait for the blood to return to its brain.

The Endorsement

In what is euphemistically called the ‘presidential primary season’, a time when the populace cast their votes for a slate of candidates presented by inept and conspiratorial private business enterprises believing they are government, one of the apparently forgotten tenets of a free and democratic republic is the concept of the secret ballot.

The principle of the secret ballot is singularly thus: citizens are allowed to have their voice heard, without fear of governmental sanction or retribution.

The right to vote can duly take its place amongst the higher echelons of the precious gifts given to us by the framers and the founders who in their wisdom understood that a free and open democracy relies on the safety and security of an unconstrained electorate.

The fight to protect this fundamental tenet of American democracy has been waged and won by the blood of those who understood the importance of America and gave their lives to defend her principles.

The electorate needs to remember this when the cult of personality infects the body politic under the guise of a political ‘endorsement’ and attempts to subjugate democracy to political short term expediency.

The premise of the endorsement is as follows, given the examples set in recent years.

A potential candidate, seeking to secure a position of political power and leadership, buttressed by claims of a singular focus to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, seeks short term electoral advantage by garnering a public show of support from a popular non-candidate, or from a recently vanquished political rival.

The absurdity of this minor bit of incestuous pas de deux seems to be missed by the media at large, and by a majority of the nation as a whole.

Consider the true nature of what an endorsement is: a private citizen casting aside their sacred right, and their civic responsibility to defend the right to a secret ballot, for the fleeting flaccid opportunity to bask in the fluorescent glow of vapid citizenship.

The arrogance of the endorser, primped and primed for their public display of ignorance exemplifies the insidious nature of politics today. The solipsistic belief that a public seal of approval from such a singular show of support flies in direct opposition to the secret ballot and displays a lack of intellectual heft.

This demonstrative shallow understanding of the heart of American independence should give every citizen serious cause for pause; a candidate that believes a voter will sway towards them merely because of a vote of confidence from anyone so willing to dismiss their own civic responsibility for mere momentary popularity is not an individual who should be given the opportunity to serve in government.

The price of freedom is to accept the diligent responsibility to protect and respect that freedom.

The American electorate needs to display their birthright of a secret ballot by shunning those who would both accept a political endorsement, and those who choose to make such a display of constitutional idiocy.

Our ancestors gave their lives to protect our right for a secret ballot; we owe our posterity that example of electoral intelligence.

Fair - part two

Despite the fact that the nebulous and inherently imbecilic premise of governmental ‘fairness” is discounted by the American electorate on an almost quantum level, the hue and cry over it continues unabated by the full spectrum of the body politic to he extent that the argument continues around a ‘fair’ tax structure and ‘fair’ tax rate, so that certain Americans would be paying their ‘fair’ share, despite there being no substantive  evidence that suggests what the intent of ‘fair’ might be.

The founders and framers had a very specific concept with respect to taxation. The Constitution clearly stated what their firm conviction was to as to taxation; they understood a functioning government needed revenue by way of collecting taxes, but their methodology was specific.

Consider the relevant delineation within Article 1, Section 9

“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Note the words ‘unless in proportion’.

That was what the constructors of our founding document believed to be the singular way of allaying the cost of government. There is little if any ambiguity; equally shared by all. No hint of ‘fair’, but only ‘equal’.

A subsequent Congress decided that there was a better way to be ‘fair’. They called it the sixteenth amendment and all it did was to use this phrase within its construct:

“without apportionment…and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The supposition is that they felt the Constitution as originally written was insufficiently ‘fair’.

The Constitution was flawed from its inception; qualifying black folks as three-fifths of a whole person was a bad idea, and thus that clause absolutely needed to be excised from the document nby wayof amendments.

The principal governmental funding mechanism, however, was changed to make it more ‘fair’ and thus one of the true bedrock principles of a self ruling democratic republic was scuttled for nothing more than a short sighted political theater sense of ‘fair’.

The dictum of unforeseen consequences has now led us to the point where the tax structure, its rates, and the concept of a tax is being used to quantize society as a whole, depending on the perceptions of those who are in temporary control of the mechanisms of government.

Consider the current financial state of the economy. It can be argued that the housing bubble, the deficiencies of Wall Street, and a bloated national debt were the cornerstones of the recent debacle.

The housing market collapse was initiated by the inflated worth of housing, and that mortgages were given to folks who could not have conceivable repaid those loans. The foundation for such a process was governments’ belief that it was only ‘fair’ that the American dream be realized by everyone, regardless the cost.

Wall Street was made whole by the abused taxpayer on the premise that if it was not bailed out, the very being of the economy would be destroyed, plunging the nation into irrevocable despair. It was deemed the right and ‘fair’ thing to do, given the scope of the national interest. Consider that: the government providing financial relief for private entities, in the name of ‘fairness’.  A free market economy will not thrive if the government is intent on deciding who will win, and who will lose.

The national debt is an ever increasing monster simply because of the fact politicians of all stripes have never explained what the cost of government actually is;  its obfuscation has become an art form unto itself. They pledge tax cuts, promise to increase taxes on the wealthy, so that they pay their ‘fair’ share, without detailing what those audacious claims mean in true dollars and cents.

How do they promise to either cut some, or raise some, again, all in the name of being ‘fair’, without disclosing what their intended fiscal end game truly is?

In hard economic times, an electorate is more than willing to seek a scapegoat for their troubles, and are ill-served when their elected officials opt to build straw men and claim that it is the ‘unfairness’ of the system is to blame.

The system, as envisioned and constructed by the founders and the framers is fine; it is the ignorance and cowardice of the current custodians of our heritage that make it seem unfair, manipulating money for short term political gain and glory.

There is little ‘fair’ about the American people being abused in such a manner, and the American people, en masse, need to put it end to it in the only way Americans know how – at the ballot box.

That is fair.

Fair - part one

"…we hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Fair.

It is the indefinable, nebulous single word catchphrase that is becoming the purported goal of government and society as a whole. The President pontificates about fairness in the regulation of private business with a more specific point about the current tax structure, while the loyal opposition blathers on about their blueprint for attaining their perception of a ‘fair’ machination of government, also with a specific eye to regulation of business and the accompanying tax codes.

This new Pavlov-ian reflexive adherence to such a singular word is also the demonstrative example of political cowardice and legislative incompetence.

The best corollary for this discussion would be to revisit the undefined specificity of United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964).

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

  concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184

This may sound ambiguous at best, but it is also clearly understood by the American people as the standard to be used, and this is the underlying central point, in specific, case by case situations. There can be no true standard for obscenity; once it is applied as a one size fits all salve to true pornography, the dictum of unforeseen consequences would be an assault on the first amendment that would be historic in its scope. Given its full frontal nudity, would Michelangelo’s’ “David” be considered obscene? A simplistic example to be sure, but there are times where a simple answer to a simple question is more than appropriate.

The same standard must be applied to the imbecilic euphemism of ‘fair”.

Consider what Thomas Jefferson, in this excerpt from his first inaugural speech, dated March 4, 1801, saw as the duty and responsibility of government as he assumed the presidency:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

Jefferson, like most of his contemporaries, saw the United States Constitution as a document that defined government by restricting its involvement in the lives of the people. It may today be considered popular mythology, as espoused by many in the body politic, that the Constitution is too rigid for today’s governmental needs, but that is the height of intellectual dishonesty. The government should not be using its powers to shape the path of the nation; it should be used as an instrument of the people to determine their own future, individually and collectively as a people.

The concept of ‘fair’ at its heart dismantles the strength and history of America.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of the unalienable right of the ‘pursuit of happiness’. The Constitution should be considered the ‘how’ of democratic self rule, while the Declaration should be taken as to the ‘why’ of our democratic republic. The framers and the founders were quite clear as to the ‘why’ – the unfettered pursuit of happiness; there is no mention of a guarantee of happiness, or even of any level of success in the actual pursuit thereof. It was left up to the individual to define that aspect of their own, individual life.

The proposed concept of fair, by its intended current definition, is intended to create a standard of the pursuit, and provide some guarantee of government defined happiness, an imposed criteria for the end result.

This is folly, absurd, and a threat to the healthy future of this country.

We as a nation should demand that there is no advantage given to any specific group of people, or organizations in the pursuit of happiness, but we must be vigilant over allowing someone else, specifically government, to define that pursuit for us individually. The concept of ‘fair’ is nothing more than the seeding of the national consciousness with the insidiousness of collectiveness; America is the heart and soul of mans striving towards the strength of the individual, the sense of a personally realized successful self. It is an integral part of the national fabric. We may not all agree on what may be considered ‘fair’ while simultaneously agreeing on what is considered ‘unfair’.

The concepts of ‘fair’ are even more deleterious when used in concert with attempting to mangae the fiscal health of the nation.

The next blog will discuss the inherent obfuscation relative to a ‘fair’ tax code, and address how that equation is intended to derail private business.

James Wilson & Freedom of the Press

“…in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice…and secure the blessings of liberty…

The founders and framers of the United States Constitution created a document that addressed their specific concerns, beliefs, and fears in the formation of what was called the grand experiment – democratic self-rule. The freedom of speech and of the press were amongst their greatest concerns, for they had seen and experienced first hand the effects of those rights being trampled upon or abridged in such a way as to render them completely impotent. The right of a free people to express themselves and to have their views disseminated amongst each other in their letters and in their public press was considered so precious that those rights  were specifically written to encompass all known manners of speech and the media of the day without exception. There is no other recognition of ‘the press’ anywhere else within the Constitution, save the specific language in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom or speech, or of the press….

Our founding fathers were not setting out a type of carte blanche precedent for what they understood as ‘the press’; their respect for the inherent responsibilities of both free speech and a free press were neatly encapsulated within a letter written by James Wilson of Pennsylvania, one of the few men who were seated and voted on both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention that established and enacted the United States Constitution, to William Findley, dated December 1^st, 1787:

“…what is meant by the liberty of the press is that there should be no antecedent restraint upon it; but that every author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government or the safety, character and property of the individual.”

The founding fathers might be perplexed, confused and perhaps mildly disgusted at the nature of what is today considered acceptable journalistic content and presentation.

To wit:

A recent nationally televised Republican presidential primary debate began with the moderator inquiring a candidate about the claims of marital distress made by that candidate’s ex-wife in an interview recorded for another network. The defense made by the moderator was that the quotes attributed to the ex-wife were’ out there’ being discussed and that the topic had ‘gone viral on the internet”

Is this the state of ‘the press’ in a discussion that may involve the future president of the United States? It has become acceptable professional form to quote something that has been posted on the internet. The internet has no filters, no fact-checking credentials. ‘The press’ used to accept its responsibility in securing multiple confirming sources for their published stories, but now the mere fact that it has appeared in print on a website somewhere that has not been properly vetted is the new standard for ‘the press’.

This is absurd.

There is an old adage that states that if you repeat something often enough, and if it winds up in print, the average consumer will accept it as fact. The American electorate should not stoop to the level of an average consumer. As the freest people the world has ever known, the American people should accept the corresponding responsibility and demand that any information disseminated during an election campaign be treated to the multiple source fact check process. The network television media has to apply to the government for their broadcast licenses’: should not the factual presentation of information be a requirement to attain and maintain that license?

The line has also blurred between that of newscaster and commentator. There seems to be none of the former and far too many of the latter. Commentators feel free to inject their personal views in presenting news information and then hide behind the claim that they are ‘commentators’, even those who present their views on networks with the word ‘news’ in their identifying titles.

This is not a diatribe against the internet, or a tirade against the weakness of the press, but rather a call to the patriotic heart that beats within all Americans. The internet is not an entity of facts; it should not be restricted or regulated because of that fact. It should be considered nothing more than an electronic soapbox and as such any information should be fact checked by the individual consumer. The internet is free speech; government regulation of any type is a dangerous trek towards a tyrannical state.

The twenty-four hour cable news cycle has mandated that product is more essential to profit than accuracy. The American people must self regulate their diet on any single outlet of news and information. A free people should be able to flex their constitutional muscle at will, but as James Wilson reminds us – “every author is responsible when he attacks the security or welfare of the government or the safety, character and property of the individual”.

The founders and the framers might not have foreseen the internet and cable news, but they understood the responsibility that comes with the rights to free speech and a free unregulated press.

The American people must remain vigilant to these responsibilities, or as certain as history has shown us, they can be removed easily by such an apathetic populace.

Primary Season 2012 - A Commentary

(ed. Note: as noted previously, the Madison Conservative will opt for a personal commentary as issues or events warrant. This week is just such an instance)

The very nature of political elections dictates that one must present his opponent as not the person for the job; either by his inexperience in governance, or by his incompetence in doing so while in office, hence the need for change.

Our history is a treasure trove of accusations between opponents from allegations of homicide to levels of debauchery that would mandate an apology of biblical proportions to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Candidates for elective office now seem so well versed in making such finely nuanced accusations or proposals these days that they feel so comfortable that moments after making certain absurdist declarations they opt to distance themselves from what they just said, on the record, if front of millions. (Remember a sitting president, under oath,  asking for what his inquisitors definition of “is” was)

For the most part, the American electorate takes such nonsense in stride in their evaluation of the candidate’s qualifications, and votes their determinations on sound personal judgments. If they find that their assessments were in error, they will make the necessary course corrections in the next election.

In this primary season, what is evolving, however, is a troubling trend and one that must be addressed by the American electorate.

To wit:

The scurrilous and imbecilic accusations are beginning to turn towards the ridiculous and unfounded assertion that somehow America is becoming a lost nation, that her spirit is lagging and in need of being ‘returned’ to its ‘rightful’ owners. Various and sundry candidates of all political persuasion are blathering on with this nonsense, concluding with the claims that their opponents are the reason America is suffering and that only their salves and ointments can bind up and heal the nations wounds.

Putting aside the arrogance of such claims, which should be easily dismissed as the ramblings of idiots, these pervasive claims are an insult to more than two hundred and thirty five years of freedom and sacrifice unequaled in the annals of human history.

America may be many things, but perhaps a Madison Conservatives’ refresher ‘voter guide’ is in order as the elective dog and pony show winds its way throughout the country, ending with the only true poll that matters, the constitutionally mandated one  this coming November.

American is in a period of transition from an employment perspective; there is no doubt about that. This nation went through the same type of process during the industrial revolution. Americans adapt, improvise, and overcome. This fact has been proven again and again. When the internet boom began in the early 1990’s, few realized that such a technological revolution would so quickly doom many brick and mortar establishments, yet almost everyone today  easily uses the internet to purchase goods and services with but the click of a mouse. Many companies that helped usher in the age of the consumer internet boom are now but memories on the dust heap of employment history, yet there has been no declarations that the internet cost millions of jobs to honest and decent people employed in the brick and mortar world. - (remember CompuServe and Prodigy, the initial rivals to America Online? Would America opt out of having such entities as e-Bay and Amazon.com at their disposal?)

We are a capitalist society; he who builds the better mouse trap wins.

America is employment resilient; perhaps to make that point clear to the body politic, the next wave of unemployment statistics should include those in elective office who helped create the current economic stresses.

Americas’ standing in the world is also an issue that is rising to the forefront in this year’s campaign. This should be properly debated and discussed amongst the body politic and the electorate, but to propose that America’s role in the world is fading? When disaster and strife befall another nation, who is it that the world looks to for rapid response and security if needed? The recent act of the United States Navy in rescuing Iranian nationals from pirates is a perfect example. America is the nation that gets it done; we understand that the blessings of liberty come with a price and we have continually chosen to pay those costs.  Foreign policy should absolutely be an issue for there are many intelligent alternatives on how to conduct a nations foreign policy, but to add into that debate that somehow America is fading is both preposterous and libelous.

As the candidates vie for votes, remember to take many of their claims of Americas’ malaise with a twenty five pound bag of salt; we have endured and prospered through tough times, we will do so now, and continue to do so in the future.

We must as a nation remember that collectively we are Americans, and that such a statement still means more than we can know.

We the people; let freedom ring!