For my latest posts please see my new site at PatrioticWisdom.net. Click here to be forwarded to my latest blogs.
John McCain announced his V.P. running mate today and it turns out to be an excellent choice. Sarah Palin is the current Governor of Alaska and, although most people haven’t heard of her, she brings a lot to the ticket. The more I read and hear about her, the more I’m reminded of President Theodore Roosevelt.
Although she’s relatively young she has quite a few layers of experience. She’s a former champion basketball player, beauty pageant contestant, PTA member, city councilwoman and Mayor. Her husband is a commercial fisherman and union member who cares for their five children. She’s a life member of the NRA and a pro-life, conservative, hunting, fishing, conservationist. Governor Palin has fought corruption within the Republican Party and has one of the highest approval ratings of any Governor.
Teddy Roosevelt also had a wide variety of experiences before winning national office at a young age. He had been a Governor, rancher, police commisioner and Rough Rider. As a conservationist and hunter he recognized the need to preserve land where future generations could access wildlife in protected, natural surroundings. He had a reputation for doing what was right for the people, not for himself. As President he started the National Park system to conserve lands for future generations. Unlike environmentalists, who believe the environment should be protected at all costs, conservationists believe it should be protected in balance with the needs of people. Both President Roosevelt and Governor Palin represent an understanding of that balance, coupled with an appreciation for all of our natural resources.
The most impressive connection I find between the two is a great strength of character. This is the quality we should all look for in our political leaders. This is what causes someone to do what’s right, even if it’s not popular. Strength of character will cause you to point out wrongdoing, even when your associates tell you to look the other way. This quality helped make Teddy Roosevelt popular and will serve Sarah Palin well, wherever her future lies.
Posted in America, Republican, politics | Tagged Conservation, conservative, John McCain, politics, Republican, Sarah Palin, Teddy Roosevelt | 2 Comments »
I’ve just opened a new blog with the same name, and covering the same subjects as this one. Why would anyone in their right mind do such a thing? There were several things that helped me make this decision. The first is that patrioticwisdom.com is hosted on WordPress, a good organization that provides a good service for free. There are, however, some options missing when they’re your host. One is that you’re limited in the available themes, those things that provide the look and features of a blog. Another is that you can’t add features you may want to provide your readers. You also can’t make style changes without paying an annual fee. I had wanted more control over these things, as well as a more patriotic looking theme. I also wanted to be able to change the code in my theme to make sure it validated to web standards. This makes it work better in more browsers and with more devices.
As a blog becomes more popular, many readers want more features and with the new Patriotic Wisdom I can provide them. When you look at the new site you’ll find things like the ability to add posts to your favorite social networking sites. You can now subscribe to my rss feed using dozens of different feed readers, not just a limited few. More and more features will be added as time goes on.
A benefit for me personally is that I now own my domain name, it no longer belongs to someone else. This won’t make it any better, but it does give me a more secure feeling. The new domain name is patrioticwisdom.net and it will contain some posts you won’t see here. I’ll still post here, but nothing that won’t also be posted there, and only every week or two, just to keep it from becoming totally inactive. I’ll be posting 3 or 4 times at the new sight, for every post I add here.
Come join me at my new location, it’s already activated and open for opinions.
Posted in blogs | Tagged blogs, patriotic wisdom, wordpress | Leave a Comment »
Robert Novak, the 77 year old conservative journalist, has announced his immediate retirement. Mr. Novak, who was diagnosed with a brain tumor last week, had previously announced a temporary leave from his work. Mr. Novak was editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report and has been a syndicated columnist for 45 years. He is also well known as a TV commentator, appearing on several CNN shows. His retirement will leave a void in the media and his conservative wisdom will be missed.
We wish Mr. Novak the best in his fight against his brain tumor.
Posted in conservative, media, politics | Tagged conservative, politics, retirement, Robert Novak | Leave a Comment »
The Supreme Court of the United States recently made the most important ruling on the Second Amendment since its inception. In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER the court ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right. In the majority opinion, it is notable that they reiterated just how the Constitution was written. As Justice Scalia wrote, “the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.”, leaving no doubt that the framers wanted clarity for the average American.
I find it ironic that the framers wanted us all to understand that the Constitution means what it says, yet there is so much disagreement in its meaning. A study of the words chosen, utilizing reference books and dictionaries of the period, will explain what was meant, without the need of a law degree. In the case of the Second Amendment, it simply says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed“. I’m not going to belabor the meaning of those words, the link to Heller in the first paragraph should prove sufficient. What I will discuss are some of the future decisions still needed to put the Second Amendment debate to bed.
Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment speaks to an individual right, they did not address whether it should be Incorporated, through the Fourteenth Amendment. Doing so would make it enforceable against the state governments and place it on par with most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. This will, I believe, be part of a future case yet to be filed by someone.
Other issues, expected to be part of future cases, include addressing what Justice Scalia meant by “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Specific limitations will have to be legislated and litigated in the coming years. We’ll see lawsuits regarding the issues of what types of arms can we bear, how many can we own, who can be blocked from Second Amendment protections, is forced registration allowed and what about licensing laws.
One other important issue, not addressed in Heller, is the definition of the word “infringed”. In the Second Amendment, it specifically states “shall not be infringed”, so it appears, from common usage, that any restrictions must be minimal. This one point may, in fact, be the single most contentious item to be addressed in some future litigation.
Posted in America, Constitution, Supreme Court | Tagged 2nd Amendment, Constitution, keep and bear arms, SCOTUS, Second Amendment, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment »
The United States of America was founded on the principles of freedom, individuality and unity. Each of the states felt it important to keep their individuality, while still being unified with each other. Our Constitution guaranteed the States those individual rights, while still uniting them in a lasting bond with each other. That bond is exactly what made us “United States”, and empowered us to achieve our greatness. We opened our arms to people of all nations, welcoming them to share in our freedoms. America became known as the “Great Melting Pot”, the principles of which added to our strengths. See my previous post on that subject here.
A part of the process of immigrating was to meld with those who were already here. Assimilating into a new society meant making new friends and learning new things. You learned the personal histories and cultures of those around you while teaching them about yours. You learned about new opportunities, and freedoms you may never have previously tasted. You found a new way of life, where you could become more than you had ever been before, without losing who you were. Keeping your individuality was as important, and as expected, as melding into your new home country.
Early in our history, before our new country was even formed, English became the primary language. Most of the early settlers came from England, so it was a natural choice. Although there were some that were not allowed to learn reading and writing, and others that never had the opportunity, they were still taught to speak English. It was a crucial part of assimilating into society and working toward whatever your goals might be. Every new wave of immigrants represented a variety of minority groups, with each wanting a new beginning, and all willing to learn English as one way to improve their lives.
Sometime during the latter part of the 20th century, some of us lost track of who we are as a nation. They felt that, rather than teaching our language to some new immigrants, we should start providing things in theirs. It wasn’t that the number of Spanish speaking immigrants was an unusually large percentage, in those early days. It was that so many of them simply didn’t learn English. We were providing free classes in English as a second language all over the country. Our school systems, community groups and other organizations gave classes for adults and children alike. While many took advantage of the opportunities, a vocal minority of them took to complaining, rather than learning. Some said it was too difficult, others felt it was demeaning, still others said the teaching was unsuitable.
Coming to a new country and learning their language and customs isn’t easy, but it’s worthwhile if you want to achieve. The Cuban people, as a group, are a good example of what I mean. Here is a people, living under the tyranny of Communism, that had to flee their homeland in order to survive. If ever there was a group of people with a right to complain about their circumstances, this is them. Rather than sitting around moping, they became industrious. They embraced America, learned English, took advantage of the opportunities and still held onto their culture. Many have become citizens, proud to be here, and we’re a better place because of them. They’ve become Americans that are proud to be Cuban, not just a hyphenated, separated, group of Cuban-Americans.
I believe it’s time to stop the separation that accommodating two languages causes. We need a Constitutional Amendment proclaiming English to be our official language. It should require that all immigrants learn to read, write and speak rudimentary English within five years, or their Immigration Visas, or Green Cards, will not be renewed. Documents printed by State and Federal governments, intended for the use of residents, should be in English only. The millions of dollars currently being wasted on printing non-English Drivers License manuals and tests, voting information, explanations of various government programs etcetera, should be stopped. The money would be better spent on teaching English and becoming united people once again.
Posted in America, Constitution, Immigration | Tagged America, Constitution, english, immigrant, Immigration | Leave a Comment »
This November millions of us will head to the polls to vote for candidates in Federal, State and local elections. Many voters will wonder who to pick to represent their views and interests. No matter what you might look for in a candidate, there are some non-partisan sites with information to make your choices easier. At the end of this post, I’m including links to the homepages of three of the more popular of those sites, in no particular order. Between them, you’ll find information on all the candidates running for State and Federal offices. Don’t forget to check the official websites for your state, they’ll have additional voting information.
I have no affiliation with any of these listed organizations, I’m simply providing the information in an attempt to help voters make educated decisions. If you know of any that should be included, leave the URL in a comment and I’ll add it to the list.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm
Here’s to better government through voter education.
Posted in campaign, politics | Tagged election 2008, elections, politics, voting | 1 Comment »
During this election cycle we hear a lot of rhetoric from our political candidates. Along with an excessive amount of media coverage, it comes from their ads, their rallies and their websites. All this rhetoric is supposed to tell us what the candidates stand for, what they’ll do and why we should vote for them. So how do we know when they’re telling the truth? Part of the answer is “that’s easy”, assume that when their lips are moving, they’re pandering to their audience. The other part of the answer is “do your homework”. That is, after all, our responsibility when we exercise our right to vote. Whether you’re a Liberal, a Conservative or a Moderate, the same diligence is needed to make an informed choice.
Doing your homework involves two things and, in this age of the Internet, neither is difficult. First, you should listen to what the candidate says and focus on what’s important to you. Secondly, check to see how the candidate has voted on related issues. Does the rhetoric match the voting record? If they have no voting record on a particular issue, what were they saying about it a year or more before they ran for office? If there’s no information on that, are you sure they have the ability to do the job? Any politician can say what he or she thinks you want to hear, and they will. It’s your duty to make sure it represents their real intentions. This is how voters can, and should decide which candidate gets their support.
What I find to be completely ridiculous though, is the method so many voters use to make their choice. Deciding who you’re for, or against, based on their gender, skin color, or age, is an insensate decision. Likewise, only a fool would forget what someone has done, or failed to do. Yet we constantly re-elect politicians that go back on the promises we cared about. America gets the politicians it deserves, because so many of us fail to make educated choices. It’s time we pulled our collective heads out of our, (you know where), and make more informed choices. I saw a recent poll from Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports that said the job approval rating of Congress was at 9 percent. How many of those ineffective imbeciles will be re-elected this November?
We hear Congress blame the President, the President blames Congress, the Republicans say it’s the Democrats fault while the Democrats claim it’s the Republicans. Let’s face it, there’s more than enough culpability to go around, but the real culprit is none of the above. The single biggest cause of ineffective representation in Washington is the uninformed voter. If ignorance is bliss, these people are ecstatic. “I’m voting for my candidate because they want to fix the economy.” Gee, that’s great, what’s their plan? Will it work? Do the others want to break the economy? “My candidate wants a smaller government.” Good for them, but what are they going to cut? The IRS, Pork Barrel Spending, Social Security, Homeland Security, the Military, or some other areas? Do you agree with where they’ll make the cuts or do you even know? When they speak, does the information ever get past your ear canal? When will we start paying attention and make considered decisions before heading to the voting booth. There’s no time like the present.
Posted in Congress, Democrat, Republican, politics | Tagged candidate, Rasmussen, Republican, voting | Leave a Comment »
The Constitution serves as the fundamental law of the United States and is the very foundation of our government. Although I’ve never heard anyone argue that point, I regularly hear people argue about how to treat it. Among these people are Federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court. Some say it is a living, breathing document that needs to be adapted to modern times. Others say it should be viewed by the original intent of the Founders. I say that it is a living, breathing document, which should be viewed by the original intent of the Founders. Let me explain just what I mean.
Our Founding Fathers were men with some of the finest minds available. Twelve of the thirteen states sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, now commonly called the Constitutional Convention. The delegates understanding of the importance of the task at hand is summed up in a letter written by one of them, to his son. George Mason wrote “The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree. May God Grant that we may be able to gratify them, by establishing a wise and just Government.” The Constitution was not only crafted with a great deal of thought, it was agonized over, discussed at length, heavily debated and went through several drafts. The goal was not to simply piece something together that would suffice, it was to lay the very foundation on which our country would stand. They understood that this document needed to be crafted to stand through the ages.
If we believe they succeeded, and I, for one, do then we must decide if it needs to be adapted to modern times, or if it should be viewed by the original intent. The fact is that those jurists that say it should be adapted to fit modern times are changing the role of the courts, and in the process, eroding our rights and freedoms. Our Constitution requires the separation of powers between the three branches, with each having specific duties. The Constitution is a “living and breathing” document because it can be changed by the people, through Constitutional Amendments, not by the courts that change the original intent. The role of the judicial branch is to determine whether a law fits the Constitution, or is at odds with it and whether a law is properly applied in a Federal case. When the Constitution fails to meet the needs of modern life, the American people have the ability to change it at their will. When the majority of Americans decided the tyranny of slavery should be banned, we passed the Fifteenth Amendment. When we acknowledged the importance of women, we passed the Nineteenth Amendment. This is the Right of the People, not the duty of the Judiciary. The debate over how difficult it can be to amend the Constitution can rage on without me. The importance of the document is reason enough for me appreciate those difficulties.
Two decisions from the last term of the Supreme Court serve as examples of the two schools of thought, and why judicial activism erodes our rights. Let’s first look at the D.C. v Heller decision, decided from the “original intent” point of view. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the court regarding this Second Amendment case. After discussing the basis of the suit itself he stated “we are guided by the principle that the Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” He then cites two prior cases where this principle was established. In other words, the Constitution was written in a manner that allowed ordinary people of the day to understand its meaning. He then goes on to break apart the words and phrases used to determine how people of the era would have understood them. Using dictionaries and other books of the day, as well as State Constitutions with similar provisions, he determines what the majority considers to be the meaning of the Second Amendment. This process is commonly thought of as strict constructionism, or ruling by the original intent. To me, this is a commonsense and logical method, which preserves the duty of the court.
Now let’s look at Kennedy v Louisiana, a decision where the majority ruled by the “living, breathing document that needs to be adapted to modern times” approach. Here Justice Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, delivered the majority opinion. In that opinion he said “the Court is guided by objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions.” And “A review of the authorities informed by contemporary norms, in-cluding the history of the death penalty for this and other nonhomi-cide crimes, current state statutes and new enactments, and the number of executions since 1964, demonstrates a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.” Notice that in this case they did not look back to the Founders, but to “contemporary norms”. I submit that the method used in making the opinion has taken away the Rights of the People. In the Balance of Power, we elect officials to make laws to protect society. When the Supreme Court strikes down those laws based, even in part, on whether or not there has been enough legislation passed, they have undermined our Rights. The case was about whether or not the Death Penalty was “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” for someone committing child rape. The role of the Court is to look at the original intent of the clause, as it pertained to “other nonhomi-cide crimes””. In deciding whether they feel enough State Legislation’s have recently addressed the issue, they have actually prevented our Elected Officials from addressing the issue in the future. This, to me, is a clear example of an insensate ruling. Extending the same logic to future rulings, they could decide that a new, more humane, method of administering the Death Penalty is Unconstitutional because it violates the “unusual” section of the Amendment, not having been in common use over the past forty four years.
In closing, I think our Founding Fathers did a magnificent job in crafting our Constitution. It’s time our Federal Courts stopped eroding our rights with decisions based on what they think we might currently want. If and where the Constitution needs updating to fit the times, We the People are completely capable of doing that ourselves.
Posted in America, Constitution, Supreme Court | Tagged Amendment, Constitution, Heller, original intent, SCOTUS, Supreme Court | Leave a Comment »
July 2009 S M T W T F S « Oct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 
NRA – ILA- Larry Elder
Archives
