The Colorado Shootings

It is apparent that events are occurring that require opinionated observation. To that point, we will be deferring the restart of our platform creation to discuss the Colorado shootings on two key tiers: gun laws and the media as a whole as it reported on this tragic event.

As to gun control, The Madison Conservative still believes, as was discussed after the Arizona shootings, that there can be limits on magazines with 100 bullets and still respect the full integrity of the second amendment. The Madison Conservative is heartened by Supreme Court Justice Scalias’ recent comments that there can be certain limitations on arms, but that the issue first needs to be addressed at the state level.

In the absence of true leadership, it seems that there is a simple answer to the immediate concerns on the issue of gun control. The solution would avoid the infringement on the constitutional guarantees of the second amendment and simultaneously allow Congress to do what it enjoys doing most – creating tax legislation in search of money from any source.

To wit:

Do not attempt to regulate assault weapons at this time, but put a fifty dollar tax on the ammunition needed for said weapons. This will protect that portion of the citizenry who employ firearms for sport or security, as those arms do not utilize assault weapon munitions, but the tax would allow the government an easier way to track purchases of the assault weapon magazines.

It is understood that such an idea is simplistic and perhaps unrealistic in that simplicity, but the debate must be had and the full constitutionality of assault weapon bans must be addressed. The tax would follow constitutional protocols that require a tax to be paid before it can be addressed through the judicial process.

The media seems to be of late an easy target for individuals and blog posts to criticize and critique for the woes of the nation and for perceived predispositions to one slice of the political spectrum. The Madison Conservative avoids that save for specific instances that require an exploration of the decision process employed by a media outlets editorial theology.

To wit:

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings, while specifics were unclear and details ambiguous at best, ABC News, at the national network level, opted to pronounce that they had found an individual with the name of the assailant appearing on the Colorado Tea Party list.

The question demands to be asked:

Why on earth was ABC News looking for a Tea Party connection first, and without properly vetting the information at all proceed to present that information, quickly proven absolutely wrong, to the nation? Many may protest that the mass media has a political agenda, but attempting to associate a deranged murderer with a political party is much more than a political agenda and ABC News must be held accountable. Imagine the hue and cry if ABC News had reported that the killer was a donor to the Obama campaign, and then that information was found to be false.

Secondly, and more importantly, a father of one of the victims challenged CNN, live, on air, to cease providing the name and photo of the killer, pointing out that it was merely feeding the need for similar individuals to attain the fame they are seeking. It has been a low point indeed for the media as a whole not to follow this suggestion. Many years ago it was considered comedic to race onto a baseball field during the game to garner some television attention. Major League Baseball quickly understood the goal of such imbeciles and implemented a protocol that any such individual would never again be on camera, hence the rare ‘on field delay’ provided by the sportscasters. And this is for just a baseball game; why do the media not understand this and merely report on the facts without providing personal information and mug shots.

The American people must demand responsibility from their free press.

Finally, amidst all of the convoluted rationale provided by all corners, here is the official transcript of President Obama’s remarks relative to ‘you didn’t build that’ fiasco. Taken in context, as many have stated, it appears worse than what is being shown on endless  loops on cable news.

To wit:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own.

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there.

It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.

Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Mr. President – this is not referring to merely ‘roads and bridges’.

The comments have not been taken out of context – incorrectly edited, perhaps, but not out of context.

The smart, hard working American electorate deserve better.

Vacation 2

A minor sojourn has postponed the blog post. The Madison Conservative will return next week.

Bits & Pieces - July 15th, 2012

Given the level of activity within the body politic during the Madison Conservatives’ minor summer sojourn, a quick assessment of several more notable events is in order before we return next week to our platform construction and analysis.

First and foremost was the Supreme Courts’ ruling on the Affordable care Act (ACA). It is the belief of the Madison Conservative that while the Supreme Court is the final and decisive voice in all such issues, on this particular ruling the court was in egregious error.

To wit:

It is not the courts’ responsibility to alter legislation. This is in effect what Chief Roberts did by deeming the legislation constitutional within the framework of Congress’ ability to tax. The ACA does not include within its funding mechanisms any accommodation for new legislation taxing the American people; the mandate was deemed to be just that – a requirement based upon a person being alive. The proponents of the ACA repeatedly asserted that the funding was not and would never be a ‘tax’. While the court held by a majority that the attempt to justify the ACA within the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional, the Madison Conservative believes that this decision was the extent of the courts jurisdiction on the matter. Chief Justice John Roberts created the constitutionality under the taxing authority out of essentially whole cloth. It has now established a dangerous precedent that Congress can force an individual to buy anything – or forbid the purchase thereof – by using their power to create taxes as they arbitrarily may choose.

In a strange twist, the current debate on voter ID laws is almost comically tied to the ACA.

To wit:

The political class that believes that any and all Voter ID laws are discriminatory, racist and are part of a much greater nefarious plan to subjugate portions of the electorate seem to be equally vocal in their support for the Affordable Care Act.

The arguments made against the ID laws is that it is unfair and too great a burden to require an individual to attain a valid state issued photo ID; the apparent applied  intent is to create a de facto poll tax.

The twist is that these voices seem to feel no encumbrance on requiring individuals to acquire valid ID to gain access to health care under the ACA. The hypocrisy seems to be lost on those who decry the voter ID laws. The question needs to be asked – why is it acceptable to require a valid ID for health care but not required in order to provide a voice in the direction of the nation?  To follow the logic, there should be no ID required to either vote or receive medical attention.

Both topics come with a myriad of substantial tangential issues that the Madison Conservative will address in greater detail as the weeks progress, but it was felt a brief commentary on them was needed.

The last subject that must be addressed is Mitt Romney’s speech to the NAACP.

It was reprehensible the way the speech was covered by self professed liberal leaning media outlets. The true nature of intolerance was brought out into the open and yet went amazingly silent by those media outlets that tend to a more politically rightward slant.

Consider this: the common denominator in the media that while Mr. Romney was received politely and respectfully and even garnered a standing ovation at the conclusion of his remarks, the only sound bite presented were the boos when Mr. Romney announced he would work to repeal the ACA.  The commentators were of one voice questioning why Mr. Romney would even dare to show up – he obviously had no real right to address the NAACP convention.

No quarter asked the most pertinent question; why not? Mr. Romney did not pander to his audience – he presented his view of how he perceived the nature of the upcoming election. He treated his audience as fellow Americans; he told them his truth as he saw it.

The theory that he had no right to address the NAACP is disgusting on its face – a president SHOULD be the president of ALL Americans, not merely those who share his political beliefs. Imagine the hue and cry from the liberal media had Mr. Romney opted to ignore the invitation issued by the NAACP to address their convention. There seemed to be little note that the sitting president did NOT attend the convention – addressing it as he did by video is disrespectful at least.

As the campaign season winds through the nation, the Madison Conservative will continue to present a platform that speaks to the American people in a way that addresses fundamental issues for the health of the body politic.

Gone missing

Cloud hidden; whereabouts unknown.

Enjoying a brief summer vacation. Be right back, more or less.

Almost On Vacation...

This is the time when the Madison Conservative normally takes a minor sabbatical to enjoy a brief summer sojourn. The events of this week necessitate a minor adjustment to that plan. The next blog will deal specifically with the Supreme Courts’ ruling on the Affordable Care Act in greater detail, after which we will return to the construction of the Madison Conservative platform.

In the meantime, we wish to make the following point with regard to the aforementioned Supreme Court decision.

It is critical to understand what Chief Justice Roberts noted in his majority opinion for it will be central to the discussion:

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part.  The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

In addition, it is at this time that we re-post our annual Independence day blog.

To wit:

On this anniversary of the founding of the greatest nation the world has ever beheld, the words of one of the founders should be reexamined for direction on how we as a nation can find common ground upon which to base our future.

The following excerpt is from a letter written by John Adams to his beloved Abigail. There were few more openly and unabashedly passionate founders than Adams on the subject of the infant nation. His comments speak volumes to those who wish to listen.

To wit:

(ed. Note: the original punctuations and spellings have been left intact)

July 3rd, 1776:

“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America – I am apt to believe it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more….I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States.”

We should consider Adams’ perspective when we stop and reflect upon the precious gift of our freedom and what we have lost in blood and treasure in the pursuit and defense of our independence. We should not disengage from the emotional component of democracy, and we should contemplate giving thanks for the opportunities we have been given.

Let us celebrate our nation with all the fanfare we can muster.

Perhaps if we celebrate as Adams’ suggests we can agree on our common heritage and decide to move forward together, so that as a nation we can confidently “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

We owe ourselves, our nation, and her posterity no less.

Happy July 4th and may God continue to bless all of America!

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.