Rhyme and Reason

Thoughts on the 2010 Mid-Term Elections

2010-11-04T23:21:00.000-07:00

For a number of years I loosely associated myself with the Republican party, although never considering myself “a republican.” But around 2004, I officially disclaimed any part of the republican party, on the grounds that I believed the party had become every bit the party of enormous, centralized government that the democratic party was--the party of endless foreign interventions, and constant violations of the constitution. The only difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party became, not whether more unconstitutional federal programs should be created, but which new unconstitutional federal government programs should be created.

Until just recently, I was convinced that government could not be returned to within constitutional limits unless a third party arose. I bounced between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, but still maintained that I was an “independent conservative.” And so I still am. The difference is, however, that I see a glimmer of hope that the Republican party just MIGHT still be salvageable through conservative and libertarian activism through the Tea Party.

Now I must say, there are a great number of Tea Party candidates that I did not like. I felt Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell were unqualified. You cannot run on a platform of “constitutional government” but then not understand basic concepts under the Constitution. The obvious example was during the debate between Coons and O’Donnell, where O’Donnell didn’t even know about the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Really? And you want to defend our constitution? Not that Coons’ understanding of the First Amendment was any better, but at least he cited part of it correctly. Another unqualified Tea Party candidate was Carl Palidino out of New York. I need not say anything much about the man except that I believe he is slightly deranged. Bringing a baseball bat to a concession speech? Is he auditioning for a part in Good Fellas, or is he running for public office? Come on.

But there were other bright spots among Tea Party backed candidates. Major bright spots. My favorite is Rand Paul. Unlike many other candidates running on the Tea Party, small constitutionally limited government platform, it is clear that Rand Paul has put a great amount of work and development into his political philosophy. He’s actually been thinking and studying these matters for years. Other Tea Partiers, by contrast, are new to this way of thinking. For years these people were just mindless lock step republicans, so becoming familiar with the constitution, founding fathers political thought, American history, and sound free market ideas, is a slow process. But we are glad, nonetheless, that “they have awoken to their awful state.”

New Senate members like Rand Paul have already put in the work to obtain the true Tea Party philosophy. Others, like Mike Lee in Utah, have done likewise. They are prepared with a developed political philosophy. I cannot say the same for people like Sarah Palin. She may have the instincts and desire for this philosophy, but she does not have this philosophy developed--she has not put in the work. This is why she cannot be trusted or supported for any reason but to publicize others who are much further along in the development of their political philosophy. This should be her only role.

But, nonetheless there are good signs on the horizon. Our gains have been small, but the fact that a few true small government patriots have made it into the Senate and the House means there is hope for future gains. There is still hope that we can take our government back from the clutches of the all consuming centralization of power into one body—the executive branch. If this mid-term election cycle showed anything, it showed that there is hope. And not the false hope of 2008.

And who would have thought…there is actually hope for the republican party of all places. Perhaps a third party is NOT the answer after all. As long as the Tea Party remains viable and works to produce candidates like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, there is still a chance to work within the republican party and return it to its true principles.

Thoughts Following the Beck Rally

2010-08-31T22:42:00.000-07:00

Last Saturday, hundreds of thousands of people packed into the National Mall in Washington D.C. to hear a mostly non-political message about love of God, country, family, and the constitution, which was organized by Glenn Beck, the most loved and hated man in America right now; or so it would seem. The sight and circumstances of this gathering are both strange and somewhat encouraging to behold. There certainly has never been a ground swell of this kind in my life time. The last gathering at the National Mall to be so well attended was the Vietnam Protests of 1969. So what does this mean? There are several implications, but I will only speak to one of them.

One of the things that it means is that perhaps we are beginning remember that simple change in national policy is not enough to bring about long term prosperity. The problem with liberalism, whether it be big government (democrat or neo-conservative) liberalism, or small government (libertarian) liberalism, is that liberalism presupposes that it can solve all problems from the top-down--that is, as long as the right policies are in place all problems will be solved.

However, us conservatives know better. We know that prosperity in nation begins with development of self and development of culture. And the place where we learn how to develop self and culture is found in our history, our traditions, our religions, and our role models.

The fact is, we have lost the personal character and culture that once made this nation great; i.e. personal responsibility, self-reliance, thrift, industry, hard work, sense of duty, thirst for knowledge, freedom, brotherly love, faith in family, and faith in God. You can't fix a nation made up of people who lack these characteristics with policies. The top down approach, where "the right policies" are put into place, act only as a band-aid for a much more serious wound.

If we are to put an end to our national decline, we must first put an end to our cultural decline. We must return to the American values I mentioned, such as personal responsibility, self-reliance, thrift, industry, hard work, honesty, sense of duty, thirst for knowledge, love of freedom, brotherly love, faith in family, and faith in God, or we will continue to decline.

If we fail to do this, any policies we will seek to implement will continue to fail in the long run. Now, I don't wish to denigrate the power of good policy making. Good policy making exercised on a healthy culture brings about prosperity. Policy is essential to prosperity, but it is NOT sufficient. That is my real point. And I believe that was the point of the Beck Rally.

I believe the best policies are those which are compatible with our core ethics and cultural values. Big government and the principle of self-reliance aren't necessarily compatible with one another--Big government tends to curb self reliance. Big government and the principle of brotherly love aren't necessarily compatible--when government forces us to be charitable or does our charity for us, we are robbed of our own opportunity to be charitable--consequently people become less charitable. In the same way, government robs men of their freedom to act on their own accord. And in the same way, big government tends to remove one's reliance on family and God and replace it with reliance on the government. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.

My hope is the we are awakening to the necessity of returning to this approach to prosperity. The government does not create prosperity, we the people do. We need to become fertile ground for prosperity by practicing traditional American ethics in our own lives and re-creating a culture of these ethics. Once we do this, the right policies locally and nationally can work in harmony with our cultural values to bring about another era of American prosperity.

In short, I believe personal and cultural re-development and good policy making are essential to prosperity, but the former must precede the latter. No amount of policy can save a wayward culture.

So Long Old Friend

2010-07-01T13:23:00.001-07:00

Well, I recently lost a dear friend of mine to old age (and some abuse). No, I am not speaking of old Henry down at the care center; I'm speaking of my dear old acoustic guitar. A crack in the neck of the guitar became a large gap, causing the strings to want to pull away from the fretboard.

For many reasons, I don’t really consider myself a true “guitar player.” First of all, I only know the guitar well enough to play rhythm guitar—and even then, I really only know how to play one type of rhythm really well: Jamaican based rhythms such as ska and reggae. What I know how to play, I can play quite well, but it is quite limited. In addition, I don’t know scales, so I can’t play solos. Also, I don’t know the names of the chords that I play. I play entirely by ear and memory. This was kind of hard for past band members that I worked with, but they got used to my unorthodox ways, and we worked great together.

But if this is all true then why, you ask, do I care that my old acoustic guitar is no more? Well, when I started playing guitar at age 18 (more fully at 21), I did so with the sole intent of writing music. That’s all I wanted out of the guitar originally, was a way to write music and play it, and not to play the guitar for the sake of playing it. In a way the guitar just served a utilitarian purpose. However, somewhere along the way I grew to love my guitar. I grew to love it because it enabled me to do what I love to do—write music and play it.

That guitar has been through a lot with me; I have written songs on it during the best and worst times of my life for the last 10 years, reflecting many aspects of my life. I am proud of some of the songs that I have written—not proud objectively, as in I feel that the songs compare well with the songs of others—but proud subjectively, as in I see some of my music as a personal accomplishment.

The death of my guitar is the end of a chapter. I am now taking over my wife’s old guitar. Hopefully it brings with it the same kind of inspiration that my old guitar seemed to.

Thoughts on the Tax Day/Tea Party Protests

2010-04-16T10:42:00.001-07:00

Yesterday the Tea Party rallies culminated in a countrywide protests surrounding “tax day” in symbolic protest against all things federal government. I must say, my hopes have waxed and waned quite a lot in regards to this movement. On the one hand it has given me hope for the future of American politics, and the republic in general.

When I hear a man say, “five years ago I wouldn’t have dreamed of doing something like this; but now I feel it is my duty,” I take heart. I certainly have never seen anything like this in my lifetime, where the otherwise “button down” people of America have taken to the streets. And I must also say it has been bitter/sweet watching how begrudgingly the media has covered this. If you listen closely enough, you can actually hear the anguish in their voices.

But what a joke. A few years ago the media followed Cyndy Sheehan and her one-woman crusade around the country like she had her own reality tv show, yet here where there is an actual widespread political movement being undertaken by a part of the population which has never engaged in such activity before, the media is scarce to be found. And when the media does cover it, by and large, the information you are given has been mashed through their giant strainer of editorialization. The media is truly doing their best to do their job of "objective reporting" while not actually doing their job of objective reporting. But we must keep appearances right?

Why is this? Because it’s not a movement they can romanticize like they did with the Civil Rights protests of the 60’s, the Vietnam protests of the 70’s, the anti-nuclear war rallies of the 80’s, the anti war and pro immigration demonstrations of the early 2000’s, and the pro gay marriage rallies in California and other places over the last couple of years. No, because these rallies don’t involve a minority group or a minority cause, they simply aren’t nearly as “news worthy.” But are you telling me that a movement that has managed to pull middle and upper class people away from their career and family obligations, senior citizens out of their retirement, and moms away from children, to do something they would never have dreamed of doing is not "news worthy"? I mean, this is the first such movement that isn't based almost entirely on college aged individuals.

But that the media despises the Tea Party movement gives me hope. When the media refuses to cover something adequately it is usually important. That is a rule of thumb you can take to the bank (wow two clichés in one sentence).

I am also encouraged by the recent “blue print” of the top 10 concerns which were recently voted on by Tea Partiers. First on their list is first on my list: (1) Require each bill to identify its constitutional authorization. There is no more pressing concern than the need to place the “shackles of the constitution”, as Jefferson called them, back on the hands and feet of our government. I would love to see a bill requiring, henceforth, that each piece of legislation proposed by Congress give a introductory statement as to which portion of Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution Congress it is deriving its authority to act. There could be no greater need at this time in our country than a resounding reminder that government may only act, IF AT ALL, if the constitution allows it to do so.

The rest of the Tea party concerns are as follows:

(2) Defund, repeal, and replace government-run health care

(3) Demand a balanced budget

(4) End runaway government spending by imposing a statutory cap limiting growth in federal spending

(5) Enact fundamental reform to simplify and lower taxes

(6)Create a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs

(7) Reject cap-and-trade

(8) Pass an “all of the above” energy policy

(9) Stop the 2011 tax hikes

(10) Stop the pork.

Most of the list is somewhat vague, but then again, the movement is a coalition of varying shades of conservative, and even includes some self avowed liberals. But by and large I believe the list is a good start.

For all of these reasons I have hope in what the Tea Party movement is doing. But I also have my doubts. My greatest fear is still that this movement will simply become co-opted by the Republican Party and that the movement will simply be smothered and destroyed. Why would it be destroyed? Because the Republican Party is nothing more than the slow train to ruin, whereas the Democrats are the fast train to ruin. Both parties have been leading our country down towards a cliff for the better part of 20 years.

My other concerns about the Tea Party is its affiliation with Sarah Palin, who I do not believe possesses a principled platform of ideas or any where near the qualities needed for leadership, let alone the lofty status of statesmanship. Yet with all of this, my current feeling is to support the Tea Party movement and see where it leads to. If it can lead us to the promised land of a rejection and dismantling of big federal government, I am on board. Yet, I will keep my seat near the back of the train and reserve my right to jump off at any time that I feel the movement is loosing its small government roots.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL: HEALTHCARE REFORM AND YOUR LIBERTY

2010-03-16T20:32:00.000-07:00

Before I begin, I would like to encourage any who may be reading this to please read the entire post, even though it is long. The things I will discuss as pertaining to healthcare reform are more important than any of the other issues being discussed.

As many of you know, the President has been pushing for final vote, for the healthcare bill that is currently pending in Congress, by March 18^th before he leaves for Indonesia and Australia. In the lead up to this, there has been an extraordinary amount of public debate as to its merits philosophically and politically, and as to whether the reform will or will not fix the status quo of healthcare.

However, what is distinctly absent from these debates is discussion as to the constitutionality of the proposed healthcare bills. This is a travesty. Here we are on the precipice of one of the largest and most expensive expansions of the federal government in American history, and few, if any, have even bothered to consider whether these proposed bills are constitutional, and the debates that I have heard as to its constitutionality are extremely superficial.

There are those who argue that healthcare reform is so important that ends justify the means, and that regardless of whether it is constitutional or not, it should be passed. Anything that requires a violation of the constitution to accomplish is immoral on its face. It is the constitution, and not political parties or political causes, to which we owe our highest moral duty.

This is because the constitution is the only thing standing between us and our government. It is the constitution, not legislative or executive grace that guarantees our liberties. It is not the President, not the Congress, not the military, not the free market— it is the constitution that guarantees us our liberties. Without the constitution any of the above named forces would be glad to rob you of them.

With this in mind, it is now my burden to show how the current proposed healthcare bill pending in Congress violates the Constitution. Because many of you might not be familiar with constitutional law, I will try and make it as simple as possible. But first I will start with the common knowledge approach which we can all be on equal footing with.

Recall in your mind a time in your life when the federal government has ever come to you and required you to buy a certain product or enter into a contract with another party. For instance, has the government ever told you that you must enter into a contract with a developer to buy a certain piece of real property, even if you weren’t in the market to buy land? Has the government ever mandated that you enter into a contract with a particular car dealership to purchase a particular type of car, even if you weren’t in the market for a new car? Can you think of any such instance?

If you thought of car insurance, think again. State governments, not the federal government requires you to purchase car insurance. There are many I have heard who have made this analogy and it is absolutely incorrect. The powers of state governments are wholly separate from the power of the federal government. It scares me that people are in high places are either ignorant of this, or are just being plain deceitful.

The reason you can’t think any examples is because it has never been done. The federal government has never had such power over your life so as to force you to enter into a contract with another person and purchase a good from that person. Yet, that is exactly what the government is trying to do with healthcare. Besides being a violation of your natural rights this is a gross violation of your constitutional rights.

In showing how the current proposed reforms are unconstitutional, I will narrow my remarks strictly to aspect of the healthcare reform proposal that mandates that the American people buy healthcare insurance, which is essentially the crux of healthcare reform. The constitutional issue that is raised here is whether Congress has power under the Commerce Clause of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to require citizens who lack healthcare insurance, and who are not participating in interstate commerce, to buy healthcare insurance. The answer to the constitutional question is affirmatively, no.

The first thing that must be noted is that if Congress is to have any power to act at all in a particular area, its power must be either expressly or impliedly granted to it under the Constitution to do so. If the power to act is not given by the constitution, Congress may NOT act. Congress is only as powerful as the Constitution allows it to be.

The question then becomes what, if any, part of the constitution is Congress deriving its power to undertake healthcare reform. It has been alleged that Congress is acting under the Commerce Clause of Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Hence, many have claimed that Congress has power to force citizens to buy healthcare insurance under its power to “regulate commerce among the several states.”

Okay, so now that we’ve decided that Congress is claiming to be acting on its authority to “regulate commerce among the several states,” it now becomes imperative to find out what the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean. Since the year 1803 in the watershed case of Marbury v. Madison, it has been the Supreme Court’s duty to determine “what the law is.” This means that what the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to mean is what becomes “constitutional law” or “the law of the land.”

In 1995, in the case of United States v. Lopez, the Court, overlooking the expanse of many cases over many years, outlined the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause to consists of the power to regulate three particular areas:

First, Congress may regulate the “channels of interstate commerce.” These “channels” are things such as highways, ports, airways, railways, etc. Healthcare insurance is not related to any sort of “channel” of interstate commerce whatsoever; therefore, if Congress is to have authority to force individuals to buy healthcare insurance, it may not derive its authority to do so as being a “channel” of interstate commerce.

Second, Congress may regulate “the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons and things in interstate commerce.” Health insurance isn’t an “instrumentality” of interstate commerce. It’s not an “instrument” of any sort; it is a service. And healthcare is obviously not a “person or a thing” in interstate commerce—healthcare is a service not a person or a thing. Thus, Congress has no authority to act through this part of the commerce clause test either.

If Congress is to have any authority whatsoever to force citizens to purchase health insurance under the commerce clause, it would have to fall under the last prong of the commerce clause test, which states that Congress has authority “to regulate economic activities that substantially effect interstate commerce.”

This part of the Commerce Clause that the Supreme Court has created is the most controversial, and didn’t exist until after 1937 when FDR tyrannically threatened the then sitting Supreme Court that if they didn’t get on board with the “New Deal” and stop overturning new deal legislation, he would “pack the court” by increasing the number of justices from 9 to 15. Because the Justices did not want their power diluted, they did in fact jump on board with FDR’s new deal. What has followed has been a gradual unraveling of our personal liberties. However, nothing compares to the threat to our personal liberties that the precedent set by this bill will pose.

Let me break this portion of the Commerce Clause jurisprudence down for you as simply as I can. Before 1937, Congress could regulate only those activities which were actually directly involved in interstate commerce, such as shipping logs from one side of the country to another. Then along came the case of Wickard v. Filburn (1942). That case concerned a federal law which told farmers how much wheat a farmer could or could not grow. Well, along came this farmer who decided to grow a little more wheat than was allowed under the statute, not so he could sell the wheat through interstate commerce, but simply to use on his own farm to feed his own family and animals. The farmer was prosecuted for violating the federal statute for growing more wheat than Congress allowed.

The Supreme Court upheld the prosecution and declared a new law as part of the Commerce Clause that has come to be known as "the substantial effects test.” Under this test the farmer’s act of growing wheat for home production, even though he had no plans to sell it in interstate commerce, could be regulated because if the farmer, and other farmers like him, all grew their own extra wheat, there would be less wheat purchased on the national market and that the “cumulative impact” of all the such activities by farmers would affect supply and demand, thus having a “substantially effect” on interstate commerce.

Does this sound just to you? Should Congress be able to tell a man that he can’t grow wheat to feed his own family? I believe this case was wrongly decided, but nonetheless, it is now the law.

Since that decision, the court has narrowed the scope of this part of the Commerce Clause. In United States v. Morrison the court essentially held that if Congress is going to regulate an activity it has to be one of an economic nature. In that case Congress tried to pass a law through the Commerce Clause that would have regulated gender based violence, which Congress argued had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. The Supreme Court shot this law down, holding that even if an activity somehow has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, the activity has to be inherently economic. And since gender based violence is not an economic activity, it could not be regulated through the commerce clause.

So where does this put us today? The first question we should raise is whether the act of buying healthcare insurance is an “economic” activity. I would argue that it is not. But there is an even more important issue here. Notice that in all of the law that I have laid out for this third part of the Commerce Clause, the key word is “activity.” The court has held that Congress may regulate economic ACTIVITY that substantially effects interstate commerce.

So the real issue becomes: Is the act of NOT buying healthcare insurance an economic activity? NO! It is an INactivity—the absence of activity. And the Supreme Court has never held that Congress may regulate INactivity.

Do you see what is going on here? Congress is saying here that not only can it prevent you from growing your own wheat to feed your own family, but it can also force you to buy wheat from someone else. The difference here is between Congress being able to tell you what you CAN’T do and Congress being able to tell you what you MUST do.

So let's return to your farmer in the Wickard case. Let's say that after the Court's decision, the farmer was so upset that he decided to give up farming altogether, vowing that he never wanted to see another grain of wheat as long as he lived. Well, Congress then comes knocking at his door again and says that while he may give up farming, he may NOT stop purchasing wheat. Therefore, although the farmer no longer needs or wants the wheat, he must continue to purchase it from the other farmers. Does this sound right to you?

We have come a long way from when the Supreme Court once held that one’s activities could not be regulated by Congress unless they were literally and tangibly involved in interstate commerce, such as shipping and receiving goods across state lines. Now Congress wants to take its Commerce Clause power to even greater heights. Not only does it no longer have to wait for persons and things to move in interstate commerce before it can act, Congress now desires to reach into your home and your life and demand that you yourself become a part of interstate commerce. Unprecedented!

Not even during times of war and national emergency or crisis has Congress taken such carte blanch power over the liberty of the American soul. Congress has simply never had power to force the American people to participate in interstate commerce where that person has chosen not to.

If you are not concerned or frightened by this, what is wrong with you? I am being serious. I’m doing my best to refrain from hyperbole here, but do you really want healthcare, and all of the other things you think you deserve, at the expense of your liberty? Do you really want healthcare at the cost of the Constitution?

If Congress may now regulate economic INactivity, what is left that Congress cannot do? Think about how much of your life centers around what you do and don’t buy. If Congress can force you to buy a certain things as it is doing with healthcare, rest assured, it can do it with other areas.

The government now owns General Motors. Is it not conceivable that Congress could come to you and say: “Citizen, your economic ‘inactivity’ of NOT buying a General Motors car is having a ‘substantial effect’ on our economy. Henceforth all households must have at least one General Motors car.”

Is it not conceivable that Congress could tell you that you must buy a certain amount of “green energy” products, because the carbon foot print you are leaving is having a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce?

I do not relish in the future if this be Congress’ power. If this bill passes and is not shot down by the Supreme Court, it will be only a matter of time before the wrath of man will be exercised through your Congress to arrest your liberty piece by piece. Remember what Jefferson said: “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Instead of binding men down by the chains of the Constitution, we are freeing man from the chains of the Constitution. Surely we will pay for this with our liberty. Citizens of the United States, your government is taking your country down a path tread by thousands of tyrants before it—a path not intended by the Fathers of this country and the God that inspired them. Stand up and be heard. Reject the actions of your government as they have rejected your constitution, your traditions, your values, and your liberties. Not only tell them “no”, tell them “HELL NO!"

In closing, I believe that if healthcare reform is to take place, it should take place on the state level, and not on the "one size fits all" federal level. Instituting reform on a state level allows for the various states to act as "laboratories", to test out reform through trial and error, where state programs which have success can be mimicked by other states, and where state programs that fail can be avoided by others states. It also allows those states that don't wish to participate in the reform, not to do so. This is democracy. And it is in sharp contrast to the federal level, where reform is forced upon all of the states, and where there is only one shot to get it right, the consequences of which are to be felt by the entire country, and where the chance for repeal if the program is a failure is extremely slight.

And for what it's worth, if you're wondering how Congress could institute federal healthcare reform constitutionally, Congress might be able to do it simply by raising taxes sky high to pay for it. But because taxes are politically unpopular, and because Congress and the President are too cowardly to do it the constitutional way, they are instead seeking to do it through the unconstitutional method they have chosen, by forcing you to buy your own insurance. Cowards...

Tea Party Pooper

2010-02-09T00:14:00.000-08:00

This last weekend Nashville hosted the first national “Tea Party” convention. Admittedly, the activities of the Tea Party movement over the last several months has given me hope that some in our country truly know and feel that our country no longer resembles the country that we all grew up in, much less the country our founding fathers worked so hard to forge. Make no mistake, the Tea Party movement is not merely a rejection of the Obama administration; it is a rejection of national politics since 1990.

Many are finally awakening to the fact that the even their beloved republican party has long since abandoned the principles that created the most superior form of government in world history; Tea Principles such state’s rights, that government should be as local as possible; separation of powers—that each branch of the government has a constitutionally designated role which must not be usurped by, or delegated to another branch of the government; namely, that the legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws.

Other principles such as a belief in the power of the free market, the primacy of the individual over the state, the primacy of the state over the federal government, the primacy of the United States over “the international community”, the primacy of the rule of law over short term expediency, and the need for a moral and virtuous culture, are but a few of a host of principles that the Tea Partiers see as wholly lacking in our present form of government.

The problem with the Tea Party movement is that it lacks leadership and coherent policy goals. If the Tea Party is going to remain on the "outside of Washington", it needs leadership and views that are "outside of Washington." I was somewhat encouraged that the convention invited Tom Tancredo to speak. I felt he was fairly independent when he ran last election cycle. However, I was very disappointed to see Sarah Palin was asked to be the keynote speaker.

Sarah Palin just got done being a running mate with one of the most progressive, big government republicans ever to run for President. Indeed, I would agree with Tancredo's statement, made at the convention: "Thank God John McCain lost the election." The organizer of the Tea Party convention, Judson Phillips, agreed: "I think a McCain presidency would have been far worse than Bush one or Bush two. I think it would have been a total disaster. I think we would have gotten the worst of what we are getting in the Obama administration and really nothing positive from what would have been allegedly be a conservative party, or allegedly be a conservative leader."

But this begs the question, if the organizer of the Tea Party convention is glad that McCain lost, why did he invite Sarah Palin, who was his running mate, to be the keynote speaker? Does he, and others, really think Sarah Palin is that different from McCain? Actually, the more appropriate question is probably, “what DOES Sarah Palin believe?” I submit to you that she doesn’t really know. Sarah Palin is whatever you want her to be, and that’s the problem.

I have no doubt that Sarah Palin has conservative instincts; but instincts are simply not enough to be a leader for conservatives, and more importantly, the country at large; it takes a fully formed political philosophy which can be employed in developing a coherent platform of policies.

Her lack of a principled political philosophy was apparent by her “keynote” speech; when asked what she felt were the most important areas of policy, Palin had to first look down at her hand where she (or her political advisor) had written them. That Sarah Palin has to speak from her hand instead of her heart and/or mind should be a serious concern for anyone touting her leadership in any national capacity.

This is not a time in America where we need more rhetoric or slogans. We’ve had 20 years of it folks! If the Tea Party movement is serious about making a return to principles of federalism, separation of powers, and small government, Sarah Palin is NOT the kind of leadership that is needed to make that happen.

“But if not Sarah Palin, then who?” the Tea Party convention might have asked. As much as he was derided and rejected by republicans last election cycle, Ron Paul is literally the only national figure that is proved to actually be serious about the ideals that Tea Partiers espouse. Ron Paul has proven throughout his 35 year public service career that he is dedicated to founding era philosophy.

However, my point in writing this is not to endorse Ron Paul to be de facto leader of the Tea Party movement. Rather, I guess I am merely voicing my skepticism that the Tea Party movement will actually lead to any form of a return to founding principles. The republican party is waiting with baited breath to snatch up all of the followers that have disaffected to the Tea Party movement. And believe me, when that happens, that will be the end of the movement. Nothing could be worse for the Tea Party than to be smothered by the feckless, wet blanket of the GOP. And this last weekend when the convention charged $550 a ticket see Sarah Palin leads me to believe that it won’t be long before the Tea Party is ushered back into the republican party.

Some might say that the movement will serve the purpose of pushing the republican party back to the right. But needless to say, I have my doubts. The republicans won’t go nearly as far to the right as the Tea Partiers will be forced to the left. The moral of this story? The time is right for the creation of a third party.

Christmas Vacation

2010-01-03T21:45:00.000-08:00

After each semester of law school that I have had, I have found that I have the same problem: What to do with the countless hours now turned free until next semester begins and every waking moment becomes occupied again. Well, over the Christmas holidays here’s a few of the things I did to occupy myself:

· Went on a daddy daughter date with Auri to Disney land, and in three hours managed to go on: Small World, the Tea Cups, Pinocchio, Snow White, the Carrousel, Story Land, the Train Ride, and the Boat ride.

· Went to the St. George temple with my wife

· Took Auri to her first movie, the Fantastic Mr. Fox, and spent most of the time giving her treats to try to keep her sitting in her seat and to keep her from singing “Jingle Bells” at the top of her lungs.

· Got caught up on current events

· Engaged in several political discussions with my dad and older brother Jason

· Read the first few chapters of Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmage

· Read 30 pages of “Slaughterhouse Five” by Kurt Vonnegut.

· Finished recording a song, started recording another song, and started writing a new song, all three of which are skinhead reggae. (Skinhead reggae is a more aggressive type of reggae, and has nothing to do with the group a racists that are commonly called "skinheads).

· Made mix cds to give as gifts

· Watched Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, 500 Days of Summer, the Fantastic Mr. Fox, One Good Man, Serendipity, and Blind Side

· Spent Christmas Eve with Kylee’s family

· Had a fantastic Christmas day watching Auri open all of her presents, most of which were provided by the grandparents (the spoilers).

· Spent a day helping my dad fell a large cotton wood tree in his back yard, dismantled it with a chainsaw, and stacked the wood for a future use which has yet to be determined

· Played old Sega games such as “Golden Axe” and “Streets of Rage” with my brother Nate.

· Got to see spend time with my long time friend Ben and his wife Ashley when they came down to St. George to see us.

· Spent an evening playing a card game with friends Matt and Abbey, but to Matt's frustration, paid more attention to making jokes and telling anecdotes than playing the game

· Spent New Years Eve with friends Dave and Lindsay, eating “Fackrell Balls” and watching Ryan Seacrest on tv. Also lit 30 flowers outside of Dave’s house to ring in the new year, at least 25 of which, upon lighting, Dave threw at me or vice versa.

· Made “Fackrell Balls” (an old family recipe) for two occasions: Fackrell balls are made by melting a cube of butter, a pound of caramels, and a can of sweetened condensed milk in a medium pan, and then dipping marshmellos in the melted goo, and then rolling the goo covered marshmallows in rice crispies. Kylee (My wife) coined the name for the treat, seeing is how we don't know where my grandma got the little recipe, or what they are supposed to be called.

· Learned a series of new gibberish words from Auri; for instance did you know that a “pepper schtock” is “a tiny little toot”?

· Played hide and go seek with Auri about 100 times

· Got to spend a rare two days with my older brother Jackson

· Celebrated my sister-in-law Tiffany’s birthday

Wish it was fall...

2009-10-12T23:53:00.000-07:00

This is my favorite time of year. I love the fall, and always have. Nothing beats the feel of the first brisk breeze of the season after a long menacing summer, the changing leaves and colors, and the overall change of pace. It seems that life changes and transforms along with the season. At least that has been the way it has been with me. Fall has always been the season of change for me. There’s always some new phase that I am moving into, sometimes willingly, sometimes not.

Some of my favorite memories are associated with fall. In high school all my favorite bands would tour through Utah during the fall, so I would always find someway to hitch a ride from St. George up to Salt Lake and go with my friend Ben to see bands that we were into. Also, all my favorite shows that I played with in my own bands took place in the fall. With both my high school band, the Late Shakers, and my undergrad band, the Upstarts, it was our shows in the fall that were always the best and the most fun.

Still yet, all of my favorite albums are associated with the fall. Either they album came out then, or I just happened to just it then. My three all time favorite fall albums are 1) the Slackers "the Question", 2) Hepcat "Out of nowhere" and 3) the Toasters "Hard Band for dead." (Which is impressive for the Toasters to make it into the top three, because they certainly aren't in my top 3 as far as favorite bands goes. But hey, in the fall of my 9th grade year man, that was my favorite album.)

However, I must say, it’s just not the same out here in California. It doesn’t get colder, it doesn’t rain and thunder, leaves don’t change colors—the whole fall feel is missing man. It’s just one more reason to make it back to Utah as soon as we can.

This is a page of leaves that I collected back when I was on my mission in Cleveland Ohio from 2000 to 2002. The falls out there were amazing. The colors of the leaves are way brighter than leaves in Utah and there's way more of them. They are maple trees. But Utah tends to make up for it by the amazing mountain-sides that become painted with fall colors. Wow, this is sounding like I am writing a 8th grade English paper on "why I like fall." HA! At the risk of sounding any more sentimental than I already have, I will leave it right here.

"A Wife and Two Kids": Eden Turns Two-Weeks Old

2009-08-19T21:37:00.000-07:00

Well, Eden is now 2-weeks old, so it’s about time that I show her off. She’s a precious little creature, she is! It’s still kind of hard to believe that I am the father of two children now. Growing up you see all of those movies that have the famous line, usually uttered by some down on his luck schmo that is pleading with his boss not to fire him, or some desperate guy pleading for his life, “please Johnny, I gotta wife and two kids at home!!” I remember thinking how old a guy must have to be in order to have a wife and two kids. I figured the age had to be about 40. Well, here I am at 28. Not too bad. Still, I don’t feel overly old. Kids have the tendency to make you feel younger, at times, because they can remind you how to have fun.

Eden is a great new addition to the family. She has brought a peaceful spirit into our home, which is helpful because it acts as a counterweight to Auri’s boundless spirit. Another advantage of newborns is that it tends to make wives more content. They can’t seem to get enough of the cuteness and the innocence. And I must admit, husbands can’t either. Happy two-weeks Eden.

Freedom vs Rights (Part 3 of 3): Freedom

2009-08-04T17:59:00.000-07:00

After this post I promise to write about good old regular life--no more politics for a while. For now, I'll get down to business.

As explained in the first post, the subject matter of this discussion is a response to those in our government (and like minded individuals), that preach the gospel of “rights”. They argue that there are many “human rights” that exist which our nation has simply failed to recognize, such as the right to universal health care, the right to a living wage, the right to food and shelter, and so on and so on. These rights are often preached under two banners: 1) equality and 2) freedom. The preachers of the extension of more and more recognized rights will not be content until the rights they preach extend to all facets of the human experience and until all men are compelled and cajoled to be equal in every human respect. However, forced equality is not freedom. Yet those who preach these rights also claim to be extending freedom. These individuals try to create the illusion that Rights = Liberty or that Rights = Equality and Equality = Liberty. As I will show, this is not necessarily true.

My central argument is that when we seek to create new rights outside of the constitution, “we the people” will not necessarily end up any freer as a result, and in fact will more than likely be less free. My goal is to dispel the utterly false notion that more rights somehow means more freedom. Not only is this idea false, it is a danger to our liberty.

The first thing we must understand is that rights are not the only thing that extends freedom. A carefully crafted prohibition can be responsible for assuring just as much freedom as any right can. John Adams once wrote: “Liberty without law endures as long as a lamb among wolves.” This is so because if all we had were rights, and no laws, liberty could not exist because the exercise of the rights of one would be allowed to conflict with or cancel out the rights of another.

A very simple illustration of this is the law against committing murder. This is surely a law that takes away the “right” to commit murder, yet are we more or less free because of this prohibition? Without a doubt we are more free due to laws prohibiting murder. Why is this? This is because if such a law didn’t exist we would be slaves to violence and fear, and would assuredly be less free as a result. To put it another way, the right to take a life would conflict with the right to preserve life.

A more debatable example is the right that I mentioned as being one of our fundamental rights, the right to self-defense (a sub-category of “the right to life” which is codified in the 2nd amendment). Under the 2nd amendment we can exercise our right to self-defense by the use of firearms. Surely there are negative effects that the right "to keep and bear arms" has upon our society, such as gun driven crime and violence. Crime and violence have negative effects upon our freedom; yet we must balance these negative effects of the right to keep and bear arms against its positive effects upon our freedom, such as the ability to protect the life and limb of oneself and family, our ability to amass an insurrection against the government should they ever become an enemy to the Constitution, and also the general enjoyment of firearm use for hunting and recreation.

From this brief discussion we can immediately see that rights do not always lead directly to freedom. Rights will always come with consequences, some of which can be positive and some of which can be negative. If the negative effects of a given right outweigh the positive effects of the given right, then surely we have become less free as a result.

If we were to take a long view of all of the fundamental rights that I mentioned in the last post, I’m positive we would find that the freedoms that those rights afford far outweigh any freedoms that they may take. However, the same cannot be said for all rights. All rights are not equal. This is why it becomes incumbent upon us as citizens to be skeptical of any newly proposed or declared right. No matter how appealing the soothsayers make them sound—no matter how hard they pull on our heartstrings to extend rights in the name of “equality”, we must resist doing so until we place the proposed right against the greater standard of freedom. Our highest moral obligation is to freedom, not equality. Freedom is our northern star. Freedom, after all, is achievable, while equality on the other hand is not. We are often told that by extending rights we extend equality, and by extending equality we therefore extend freedom. But we know this is not always true. That is why when we are asked to accept (or our government unilaterally extends) a given right, we must decide for ourselves whether it will give more or less freedom; we must place the proposed right on the proverbial scale and see what liberties the right would give and what liberties the right would take.

The government has now come to you and I and asked us to accept a nationalized healthcare program based on a philosophy that health care is a right. What do we do? We must place this right on the scale and see what liberties it will give and what liberties it will take. If it proposes to take more liberties than it gives we must reject it.

I will not be so bold as to say that I know for certain the answer to this question. A great deal of the bill currently in the Senate is a mystery. Some of the more transparent details is that to fund the program the administration has proposed to take money from existing healthcare programs and re-distribute it into this one; in addition, however, the administration has also proposed to tax those who make over $250,000 a year. Woops… right here we can immediately see that this bill proposes to infringe upon the rights and freedom others by taking their property (through taxation). Hence we know that the proposal is not an across the board extension of freedom. This right, like so many others, comes with a price.

The second and more difficult question, then, comes in the balancing. Surely some people will have more freedom as a result of the healthcare bill because they will have access to services they previously did not have access to due to various personal situations. However, government consolidation of the healthcare industry will cause there to be less healthcare choices in general, decreasing our freedom of choice and thus lessening our freedom to that extent.

In balancing between the freedoms this proposed right will take against freedoms it might give, it is uncertain what that final balance will be. This is where we rely on history, principle, like models, and our gut intuition. I am confident that using these resources, the odds would be highly stacked against the workability of socialized healthcare; but I will not be doing that analysis here. My point has not been as much to make the prima facie case against the new healthcare proposal as it is to show that rights are not necessarily synonymous with freedom and that we must be vigilant to guard our freedom against any newly proposed rights and entitlements.

There have been and will always be individuals that will come preaching rights beyond those fundamental rights that are guarded by our Constitution. We must be skeptical of attempts to do this and must not be deceived into believing that more rights necessarily means more freedom, or that “equality” and freedom are one in the same. I am not saying we should never accept a newly proposed right, or that extending “equality” is inherently undesirable. What I am saying, however, is that if in doing so we must trade our freedom, we should do so under only the most exigent of circumstances. Ensuring that every person is entitled to healthcare might give some more freedom and lead to greater equality, but it is likely to lead to less freedom.

In the end it comes down to two fundamentally different views of the pursuit of happiness. Whereas some believe that it is the government’s job to ensure that individuals achieve happiness through making positive rights, others of us believe that the government’s best role is to extend only those rights and promulgate those laws that that will afford us the most freedom to pursue our own happiness with as little government intervention as possible.

In closing, then, I would submit to you that when the government seeks to pursue our happiness for us through the extension of positive rights, we loose the freedom to pursue happiness on our own. It follows then, if man is not allowed to pursue his own happiness, can he ever truly be happy? I don't think he can. This is why man should be allowed to pursue his own happiness. He may never fully achieve it on his own, but often we find that happiness comes in the pursuit itself, come success or failure.

Freedom vs Rights (Part 2 of 3): Man's Fundamental Rights

2009-07-26T17:08:00.000-07:00

There are indeed certain inalienable rights that all mankind are endowed with by their creator. These rights, if violated or not recognized, will almost always lead to a lesser amount of freedom. There are other rights, however, which are often recognized by governments that are not fundamental (or God Given), and which may not always lead to more freedom, such as the right to healthcare.
So exactly what rights are so fundamental that freedom is impossible without? I have listed below five major rights below. While it is not a comprehensive list, and the discussions for each right are not fully developed, the list will suffice for the purposes of the question at hand, which is whether more rights always means more freedom.

The right to life:
Each person has the right to be free from the unjust physical or mental harms of others. We recognize this right in laws against murder, assault, harassment, and the like. This right is also naturally connected with the right to self-defense, which is connected with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. After years of debate, this right was recently recognized a recent Supreme Court Decision, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). How strange would it be to have a right to be free from the physical harm of others yet not have the right to reasonably defend oneself against such harms. This right (the right to self-protection) is, of course, subject to limitations which will be worth discussing in the next post when analyzing the difference between rights and freedom. For now, we must be left with thinking about the question of whether the right to self-protection, codified in the 2nd Amendment, gives more or less freedom.

The right to private property:
The right to own places and things upon which no other men may tread and which no government can control is indispensible to ensuring a true ordered liberty. Ownership bestows independence and fosters self-sufficiency—indispensible qualities of a free society. Private property ensures individuals a much needed sanctuary from the control of government, and also acts as a check against the power of the government. Ownership bestows a real power upon individuals that the government cannot take for itself. When “we the people” own the property, we tell the government what it can and cannot do, not the other way around. If government owns too much of our property the government conversely has too much power, and the people conversely have less freedom. For a fantastic articulation of this right, please listen to the attached audio clip of Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of State under Eisenhower and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The right to worship according to the dictates of one’s own conscience:
The right for man to analyze the world around him and come to his own conclusions as to what he believes the meaning of his life to be is perhaps most important natural right man owns. Despite what Marxists and other leftists have claimed, man is more than merely a material being who seeks only his self-preservation. What is life without the freedom to ascribe meaning to it?

The right to free speech, within reasonable bounds:
Free human expression is essential to life on this earth. What kind of life would it be where a person was inhibited from expressing their own personal thoughts, ideas, or beliefs? Without this right man would be unable to effectively protect his other rights. What’s more, how could a free government possibly exist without the ability of men to engage in the free exchange of ideas? However, there are natural limits on this right as well, such as a limit against profanity, nudity, or subversive speech—issues which I will address in the next post.

The right to pursue happiness: "The pursuit of happiness"
This right, while abstract, is nonetheless fundamental. While it would be nearly impossible to state what this right exactly entails, and answers would no doubt vary according to one's own religious or philosophical beliefs, it is safe to say that the all of the above mentioned rights are appendages to it. It is important to note that the key word in this right is “pursue.” Clearly no one has a guaranteed right to happiness, yet all should be free to pursue it. The question then becomes what role, if any, should government play in man pursuing his own happiness?

Those on the left argue that government must play a positive role in securing this right—that it is to say that government should help man achieve happiness. This leads to the advocacy of so called “positive freedoms” or “freedom to” rights—such as the right to healthcare or the right to a living wage. However, when placed against the standard of freedom, it becomes clear that these man made rights are not given by our creator because they do not naturally insure society's overall freedom. As will be explained in the next post, any so called “right” that takes more freedom than it gives can hardly be said to be “natural”, and in most cases, therefore, should not be recognized by the government of free peoples. This will be the discussion for the next post.

Freedom vs Rights (Part 1 of 3)

2009-07-18T15:00:00.000-07:00

In my last post I wrote on the Declaration of Independence and the rights that it declared inherent and God given—rights from which much of our freedoms spring. I argued in that post that if we fail to guard our fundamental rights jealously, we will put ourselves at risk of loosing them.

However, in the next few posts I wish to ague the opposite side of that coin, which is this: While man possesses some rights that are inherent and God given, which if respected will multiply his freedoms and liberties, there are some rights that are not inherent, which are man-made, and if extended too broadly will lead to less freedom and less liberty.

Understanding the distinction between “rights” and freedom is becoming more and more essential in our current political climate. We are entering into a new era of state control in many aspects of American life previously unknown in our nation’s history. Some of these areas which the government is now seeking to assert itself are being justified as matter of extending “fundamental rights” to the American people—“rights” that you will not find in the declaration of independence or the Constitution. One of these areas is healthcare.

The government is now seeking an unconstitutional imposition into our nation’s healthcare system. Like issues of morality, safety, education, and welfare, healthcare is one of those issues that was established at the foundation of the country as “reserved power" under the 10^th Amendment. (i.e. a power not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution that is therefore reserved for the states to address as they, not the federal government, deem best.)

The 10th Amendment reads 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."

How, then, can the government justify institutionalizing unconstitutional programs? How do they justify violating the Constitution? Well the government is clever—they justify it by claiming that their programs are aimed at serving “the rights of the people.” Never mind that these “rights” don’t exist in the Constitution; according to these clever folks, these rights exist in spite of the Constitution. Thus, to sell nationalized healthcare to the American people, the government covers its tracks morally by simply declaring healthcare a new fundamental right. In so doing, it is essentially as if the government is seeking to add an eleventh commandment to the Ten Commandments or a new teaching to the Sermon on the Mount.

Indeed in answering a question in a debate last fall on whether he considered healthcare a right or a privilege, President Obama said: “Well, I think it should be a right for every American.” Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008. Yes ladies and gentlemen you heard the ill-fated words that countless others have uttered when they know they are treading upon shaky, ill supported ground: “I think.”

The central questions to be addressed in the following posts then, are these: What rights are truly fundamental and essential to our liberty? And if a right is not a fundamental or God given right, what do these man-made rights do for our overall freedom as a people? Does extending more rights necessarily and naturally lead to an extension of more freedom? The answer to this last question must be an emphatic “NO!” In the next couple of posts I will argue why more rights does not necessarily mean more freedom, and why those of us who value freedom should stand against government schemes to create new “rights.”

The Spirit of '76!

2009-07-03T23:00:00.000-07:00

Few other writings in the history of man have been as beautifully constructed and have had as great an impact on mankind as the Declaration of Independence. As powerful and as inspired as Moses’ “Let my people go”, the Declaration of Independence stands as the definitive statement of man’s right to be free. More than a mere set of political demands, the Declaration sets forth the rights that are inherent to all mankind, which are given them by their Creator, which only man in his scheming can take from them. In addition, the Declaration establishes the circumstances under which a revolution is morally justified. Here is the first part of the Declaration—read for yourself the beauty of the language and principles it contains:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…”

It is easy for us to look at this document now and fail to appreciate the freedoms that have sprung from its text--which are quite literally responsible for our day-to-day happiness. Indeed, the Fourth of July is a day that deserves celebration.
In a letter to his Wife Abigail Adams, John Adams prophesied of this day that it would be “the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.”

He continued, “I am apt to believe that 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.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — 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. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.” -John Adams- Philadelphia July 3rd, 1776

While the rights declared in the Declaration are indeed rights inherent in all mankind, and while these rights are protected by the Constitution, these rights are nonetheless not guaranteed. I don’t think any of us realize how fragile our freedoms truly are. I believe we are at all times one generation away from loosing them. If we cease to guard them jealously and to do our civic duty to protect them, we will loose them. In short, we must do much more than just celebrate them.

Writing the Declaration of Independence, 1776, by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin were named to a committee of five to prepare a Declaration of Independence. Jefferson (standing) did the actual writing, convinced by Adams that he was the best man for the job.

Birthday Wishes for My Wife

2009-06-28T21:10:00.000-07:00

Today was Kylee's 24th Birthday. She says she feels old, but I would kill to be 24 again. I will be 28 soon...yikes.
It wasn't the ideal birthday for her this year; Sunday Birthdays aren't always the funnest--plus being pregnant and having a 2 year old that has learned the art of throwing a tantrum can throw a damper on the party.
However, we went out to the beach today after church to watch the water and ended up having a really good time.
Happy Birthday Kylee! You're a great mom and a great wife. We have a lot of birthdays ahead of us to enjoy together.

The Aggrolites: "IV"

2009-06-18T21:41:00.000-07:00

In keeping with my tradition of writing on topics that very few people will be interested in, I decided after buying a new record the other day to write a short review for it.

For some people, myself included, the best years for Reggae music followed right after the Ska and Rocksteady era in Jamaica from 1969 to 1974. The next best thing, of course, are those bands that make Reggae music that is in the spirit of those early years—bands like the Aggrolites.

When you listen to an Aggrolites album, you are listening to the product of years of studying Jamaican music, and it shows. Also very clear in the Aggrolites sound is their love for early American Soul and R&B. Take these influences and add the Aggrolites characteristic grit and rawness, and you have what they call “dirty Reggae.” It’s soulful, it’s raw, its sincere, and most of all, it grooves.

However, all style aside, the fact is the Aggrolites are fantastic song writers. The Aggrolites new album “IV” is 21 tracks of great song writing. If you like classy melodies and classy lyrics, you will like most of these songs. The song writing on the album is most reminiscent of the early American Soul tradition. Like the kind of lyrics that came out of Motown, they are not very cerebral, but there is a classiness and a charm to them that gives them a timeless appeal. Also, the melodies are distinctly not modern. While they are original, there is also something familiar about them. “Precious and Few” and “Ever Want to Try” are good examples of this.

In addition, “IV” also displays a divers showing of moods and grooves. Songs like “Fire Cracker” and “Wild Time” carry the energy of an old James Brown tune, while “Tonight” and “It’s Gonna Be Okay” carry the vocal smoothness of the great Jamaican singing trios like the Heptones and the Pioneers.

All and all this album 21 tracks of solid music. While I wouldn’t say that there was one stand out track on the album, my favorites are the smoother songs: “Tear that falls”, “Precious and Few”, and “It’s Gonna Be Okay” are definitely my favorites.

Another great song on the album is “Feelin’ Alright.” If one song epitomizes the album, it’s this song. The song tells the story of the band, including the fairly recent loss of their former bassist, the late and great Dave Fuentes (also the former bassist for Hepcat). In the song Jesse Wagner (singer) asks the question “Whatever happened to feel good music?” If you ask me, there is still such a thing as “feel good music” and you can find it in the Aggrolites.

P.S. Incidentally, I have a new Reggae song of my own up on my myspace page if you are interested called "I would." It's dedicated to my little family. www.myspace.com/skathesoul

The Constitution: Sacred and Inspired

2009-05-26T22:06:00.000-07:00

“[The adoption of the Constitution] will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it.” (George Washington)

President Obama announced his nominee to take Justice Souter’s place on the Supreme Court today. As everyone expected he picked a Latino woman. Now, it just may be that Sonia Sotomayor just happens to be the most qualified individual for the job, but it is far more likely that the President’s decision was merely a display of exactly how he views the Constitution; instead of viewing the Constitution as a sacred, complete document, he views it as merely a provisional document, one that is open for modern interpretation, adaptive to times and circumstances. Hence, a Latino woman, with her “ability” to take into account the interests of both woman and the millions of newly arrived Latinos is right for the job in these “modern times.” Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with advocating woman's or Latino issues, but the Supreme Court is NOT the appropriate, Constitutionally sanctioned forum to do that. That is the job of your elected officials, not your Supreme Court.

The nomination of Sotomayor today re-ignites the familiar arguments of how the Constitution should be applied by the Supreme Court.

To Obama and to Sotomayor, we are not sovereign citizens of the United States who have divinely inspired Constitutional rights, we are “citizens of the world” who have rationally developed human rights, which the Constitution must accommodate as US citizens become "more enlightened". Thus, the Constitution is a work in progress that should be flexible and mirror changing social and moral climates. This is often referred to as the idea of the “living Constitution.” It has an ironic name, for those that believe in it are effectively killing the Constitution.

For those of us “strict constructionists” who believe that the Constitution must be strictly applied and interpreted according the original intent of the founding fathers, and that any change to the Constitution MUST come in the form of an amendment, which requires two thirds majority in the House and the Senate or a two thirds vote by the states, the Constitution is NOT a provisional document to be interpreted liberally at the discretion of a “wise and learned judge.” The people we have had on the Supreme Court are intellectual peons compared to the founders, and any attempt to even begin to second-guess the vast wisdom of the founders on a premise that modern society is becoming more enlightened is really quite comical—quite comical indeed.

This is what those of use who hold the Constitution sacred believe. However, beyond what I find to be logical or rational, I believe the Constitution should not be be subject to modification and interpolation also because, as a Latter-Day Saint, the scriptures and modern day prophets and apostles inform us that the Constitution was a divinely inspired document that should not be meddled with.

The Lord said in Doctrine and Covenants, 101:80: “According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”

He also stated in Doctrine and Covenants, 98:5-7: “And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.”

Yes, anything more or less than what was inspired by the founders in the Constitution “cometh of evil”. As explained, this is not to say that there should not be amendments—but there is a process for amendments, a process which we have long since abandoned in this country, and we are now seeing the evil that is coming from that abandonment.

So you see, the debate is not merely logical, rational or political—the debate should really come down to whether you believe the founders were inspired by a living God or whether you do not.

Joseph Smith Declared: “The Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner.”

And J. Reuben Clark said: “…that statement of the Lord, ‘I have established the Constitution of this land,’ puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself. This makes the Constitution the word of the Lord to us.” (Conference Report, p. 90. April 1935.)

Being then that the Constitution is the word of the Lord, would we truly dare say that it is not adequate for modern society, that it is somehow outdated or antiquated, so much so that we must pick not the most qualified person to apply the Constitution, but the person in the the best position to give it a modern interpretation befitting of a modern political climate (i.e. a Latino woman sensitive to woman and Latino political interests)?

President George Albert Smith sternly warned of such handling of the Constitution in 1948 when he said: “Now, there are many things that I might talk about, tonight, but I want to raise my voice to you and say, our Heavenly Father raised up the very men that framed the Constitution of the United States....Yet, there are those who go around whispering and talking and saying, 'Let us change this thing.' I am saying to you that to me the Constitution of the United States of America is just as much from my Heavenly Father as the Ten Commandments. When that is my feeling, I am not going to go very far away from the Constitution, and I am going to try to keep it where the Lord started it, and not let anti-Christs come into this country that began because people wanted to serve God.” (Conference Report, April 1948.)

Yes, it is our duty not only as Americans but also as Latter Day Saints to raise the warning voice against judicial activism and any push in the direction of viewing the Constitution as merely a provisional document, one open for interpretation to serve modern, short term political expediencies. I am writing with such vigor because I truly believe it is our duty, those many of us in the church that fully understand the importance of the Constitution, to proclaim its importance with a loud voice and to demand that it remain pure.

You may be sympathetic to President Obama’s policies or philosophies, but be honest with yourself and consider whether we should trust the wisdom of modern “forward thinking” political elites because they align with our political views or whether we should trust the Lord and know that the Constitution is a sacred and inspired document that will protect our freedoms and liberties far better than they can. If we truly honor our liberties it will be well for us to proclaim that anything more or less than what is in the Constitution, or which does not come by way of a valid and proper amendment, will “cometh of evil”.

(All quotes came from http://www.zeios.com/OurRepublic)

Behold the Face of your Media!

2009-04-16T23:21:00.000-07:00

"It's anti-government, anti-CNN...since it's promoted by the 'right wing' conservative network, Fox...and since I can't really hear anymore, and since this isn't really family viewing, I'll toss it back to you kerrah."
-CNN Reporter at the Tea Party Rallies-

For those of you that doubt the power, scope, and aim of the mass media, please view the following. If there is any of you that watch this and say to yourself "Yes but she is only ONE reporter, they don't all act as irresponsible and overtly biased as she did", I would merely respond everyone of those big named broadcasters, Brian Williams and the whole lot, by and large does the same thing day in a and day out, just more subtly.
When you watch the media, you are watching it through a very crafted, manipulated lens. If you watch someone like Brian Williams, for example, one who we all count on for objective news reporting, it isn't always the words that he says that reveal his leftist views; it's the body language, it's careful use of adjectives, it's the tone in the voice, it's the way the shots or sound clips are edited together, its the camera angles, and even the lighting; in short, it's the subtlety of some of the most masterful propaganda artists the world has ever seen. I have been watching listening, and reading the words of these "journalists" for long enough now to know how and what they think. Yesterday's CNN reporter's meltdown was merely an outward display of what is on the mind of almost your entire media. Yeah, yeah, Fox News, whatever. I don't even watch Fox News. All Fox is is the ONE quasi conservative mass media outlet standing in the shadow of the well oiled, left wing propaganda machine. Well go ahead, see for yourselves...

So my first question is, what exactly is not "family viewing" about the rally? A man holding his two year old baby talking about, GASP! President Lincoln! Close the ears of those kiddies moms and dads!
Then she makes the excuse that she "can't hear"--I didn't hear any reporters complaining in all of the Obam-euphoria; nor did I hear them complaining when they camped out daily to let the No on Prop 8 propesters take up day after day of airtime here in California. You know how they reported these demonstrations here in California, as a brief FOOTNOTE that lasted, I kid you not, about 20 seconds before moving onto the WEATHER. Yet when all of the No on Prop 8 rallies were going on, they were right down in the thick of it, day and night, exuberant as could be. You should have seen the elated looks on their faces and the elevated tones of their voices. You would have thought they were at had just touched the hem of Obama himself. I am telling you, we are headed for trouble with these people at the helm. What's more is, who is responsible for putting these people in check? Unlike the federal government, the media has not checks and balances. The media has become quite literally an unchecked power unto itself, and in far too many ways, more powerful than the federal government itself. We are all essentially the captives to the tyranny of the media.
Alright, that's all I can stand to say for now. Nothing winds my clock more than the media. You probably won't hear from me for a while--I will officially be immersed in finals for almost the next month.
Till then,
keep your ears to the ground
-Andy-

A Time to Dissent

2009-04-15T22:49:00.000-07:00

To everything there is a Season- A Time to support, a time to dissent. Today was the latter. I highly endorse the protests that took place today. All I can say is that it is about time people turned off the X-Box, cancelled the tee-time, and raised a voice of opposition. One good thing about the events that have been unfolding at President Obama's hand is that perhaps conservatives, independents and moderates will have something to unite around again as they did by the end of the Carter years.
The real problem for the conservative movement, in particular, has been that two consecutive republican presidents fooled most self proclaimed conservatives into thinking that they were actually represented by them, when in truth, the Bushes represented very little but their own dynasty. The Bushes took the reigns of a massive conservative base and squandered it, divided it, and ruined it. Yes, the house of conservatism is so fragmented now, that it really might take what is currently happening to our country to unite us again, and do so around fundamental principles. I don't know though; many, like myself, have divorced themselves so thoroughly from the neo-conservatism of men like Bill Kristo and John McCain, that its hard to see how all conservatives could agree on a coherent platform again.
Regardless, however, I see the events of today as by and large very positive. It gives me reassurance that there are some patriots still out there that will be willing to dissent to the massive government and media takeover of our republic.

Elder Holland's Easter Message

2009-04-13T07:45:00.000-07:00

I know that Easter is "over" now, but I wanted to post this video the church put together from Elder Holland's talk from General Conference. This was a great talk. Everybody has a favorite Apostle or two and Elder Holland is one of mine. There's nothing wrong with having a favorite Apostle is there? It's not like I'm collecting their trading cards and swapping them with the neighborhood kids. Anyways, although I wish they used different footage behind his talk, this video is still pretty good.
He is risen!

Can I get a witness?!

2009-04-06T23:34:00.000-07:00

For those of you that don't know, I have four older brothers. Anyway, my oldest brother Jason, whom I have a great deal of respect for, has recently started a blog that I would like to announce, where you can find much wiser political writings than mine. You can find him at: http://tothetriarii.blogspot.com/
His first official non-introductory post "Dollars and No Sense" adds a witnessing voice to my last post, "The Specter of Global Governance." Check it out!
-Andy-

The Specter of Global Governance

2009-03-30T23:41:00.000-07:00

For an introduction to this post I’d like to start with one of George Washington’s many great statements. It is a belief that sadly, too many Americans no longer accept:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
I have been watching events unfold over the last few months involving our government and our future as a nation. I have endeavored not to jump to conclusions and make knee jerk reactions; however, I can no longer ignore the writing on the wall. I can’t help but be alarmed at many of the developments that have been unfolding. I will not be able to elaborate on all of them here and now, but there is one development in particular that I will address very quickly.
Due to the fast approaching board game status of our currency caused in part by over printing, the Chinese have opined that the US dollar should no longer be considered the reserve currency. In addition, others have called for the creation of a global currency. This last week at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Treasury Secretary Geithner, in answer to a question posed by investment banker Roger Altman in regard to the adoption of such a currency gave what should be to all Americans an alarming response. The conversation is as follows:
ALTMAN: Let me just follow that up for one second. A number — I haven't read the governor's essay, either, but a slew of news reports interpreted his comments to suggest that the world needs a super reserve currency, and that the dollar, on some gradual basis, ought to be replaced in favor of that. And I wasn't entirely clear what your response was.
GEITHNER: Well, as I said, I haven't read his proposal, but I thought the initial reaction was sort of ahead of the details of the proposal I saw. The only thing concrete I saw was a reference to expanding the use of the SDR, but I look forward to reading his figures. As I said, I have tremendous respect for him. He's a really thoughtful, pragmatic guy, and he has a great record of credibility in China as a whole, so anything he's — he's thinking about deserves some consideration.

(http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/932)

Before I address Geithner’s statement I will give what I see as the context behind it.
This age of globalization we live in has perhaps done more for the opportunity of the creation of global government than any other movement in world history. We have created the UN and NATO in the name of addressing global concerns and national and regional conflicts. We have created the WTO and the IMF to address global economic concerns, promote modernization in developing countries, and to manipulate global politics by means of economic incentives. We have also created complex trade agreements in the form of NAFTA, CAFTA, and AIPAC, in the name of so-called “free trade” to promote economic liberalization and the free movement of goods and peoples across boarders. In addition, we have also pushed for global tribunals on issues of “global warming” through initiatives like the kyoto protocols. This is just to name a few of the obvious examples of global government.
In all of this euphoria of creating more and more government, the rights and liberties of man are ever being placed in fewer and fewer hands. To what end to can we expect the creation of all this new government take us? Will it bring us more liberty? Will it bring us more security? Those should, after all, be the two central aims of any form of government. I can't give a good discussion on the balance between liberty and security here, but suffice it so say, for now, that it is indeed doubtful that our insistent moves toward global government will bring us either liberty or security. Can we really think that some nebulous bureaucracy made up of various nations and corporations, convening in Paris will have the best interest of our liberties at heart? And can we suppose that any such governing body will be benign, peaceful, and “democratic”? Nay! Those of us who know better know that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No matter how hard the economic crisis becomes, America must NOT give in to the siren song of massive government, either here within our own boarders or jointly, colluding with other nations. We must remain sovereign in every respect. We must remain independent; we must remain free.
What do these concerns for global government have to with Geithner’s statement about entertaining the idea of a global currency? The answer is that it has everything to do with the concerns for global government. The fact that our own government is will to even entertain the idea, frankly, scares the hell out of me. It has been bad enough that the last 20 years of “free trade” has bound us hand and foot in debt and dependency to the nations of the world, our current government doesn’t even seem to bat an eye at the thought of further subjugating us to the fate of the rest of world.
I am a firm believer that, in this crisis, each nation has the ultimate burden of getting its own house in order. This is not to say there should be no cooperation, but integration is wholly separate matter. But even assuming that some “temporary” form of global integration is necessary to whether this storm, can we really expect such a thing to be temporary? Can we not expect those at the top of such a power structure to let go of that power once it is handed to them?
The creation of a global currency will be just one more step towards global government. This mischief will not end at the creation of a currency—it will end with nothing less than global government. Every American concerned with their freedom should decry even the very thought conceived by our own Secretary of the Treasury, a post once held by the great Alexander Hamilton—a thought that is no doubt shared among the entire Obama Administration.
However, if nothing else—even if you think that the possibility of a global government is hogwash, you should still be concerned that our government is entertaining the idea to set aside our own heritage and our own sovereignty, and abandon our currency. Should we ever do so, we will have proved once and for all that we are truly no longer worthy to bear the slogan “In God We Trust” on our currency, but must in truth admit it is really “In Government We Trust.”
Should the day come where our government accepts such an alternative, I would hope that we would be willing to rise up against such a scheme.

Auri Turns Two!

2009-02-11T23:04:00.001-08:00

Well, I can’t believe that it has already been two years, but Auri turned two years old today! Kylee and I always talk about how impossible it is to picture our lives without her. Before you have children it is hard to picture your life with them, then once you have them you can’t imagine life without them. This doesn’t just pertain to lifestyle. Sure, before you have kids you have much more recreational time and more spending money. But these trivial conveniences don’t hold a candle to the joy a child can bring into your life.
I honestly don’t know what I would do without Auri. While Kylee is the love of my life, Auri is the light of my life. Without her, this world would already have drained me. When you have a child, it is like living life all over again. All of the things that have become so mundane and that you take for granted can be experienced all over again. It’s like you have a new tour guide in life, one that is excited to see just about anything. Suddenly places that have become unappealing and things that have become boring, or even a drag become new again. Something as simple as chewing a piece of bubble gum becomes a pleasure again, as you see the absolute glee on your little one’s face when you hand them a piece. Something as banal as seeing the moon at night is interesting again once your little one points up in the sky and exclaims “moon!” It really is quite a beautiful thing.
But even on a more personal level, there is just something about Auri. I can’t help but feel in her a kindred spirit. She really is a child after my own heart. We understand each other on some strange fundamental level. It’s really hard to describe. Auri and I also have similar interests. Her two favorite things are books and music and so are mine. Of course, she is also pretty obsessed with watching “shows”, but all of her favorite shows center around music. Her favorite movie right now is Sleeping Beauty which means her favorite song right now is the Sleeping Beauty theme “Once upon a Dream.” In fact, she loves it so much that she woke us up at 4:13 A.M. the other morning singing it at the top of her lungs. I thought I was dreaming that she was singing it, but eventually I woke up and realized that she was really singing it. I went into her little room/closet, she was rustling around wide awake just singing. She’s crazy. I love her for that though. I have a hard time not encouraging her craziness.
So yes, Auri has given us two very joyful years so far; but with Auri’s boundless spirit, we know that it’s only going to snowball from here. And now that we have another one on the way, I am pretty excited to see what kind of soul we will end up with next.

Auri woke up first thing and asked for pancakes, so mom made her special birthday kind.

Hope #4: Hope for a traditional American foreign policy

2009-01-27T22:17:00.001-08:00

Okay, this one is a little long, but it’s a topic that needs a lot of explanation. Hope #4 for President Obama is that he will seek a traditional American foreign policy of neutrality and non-intervention unless our vital national interests or national security are inherently connected. What does this mean? This means no more world policing and no more state building! Under Clinton our policy was one of policing the world; Under Bush our policy was one of reforming the world. When the President puts his hand on the Bible for the oath of office, he swears to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. He does not put his hand on that Bible to swear to uphold any other nation than our own, and he certainly doesn’t swear to spread democracy throughout the world. As preferable as it would be to see democracy pull down and end all tyranny, it is not the job of this nation to spend ourselves into trillions of dollars of debt (mostly owed to foreign nations) and sacrifice the blood of our best and bravest sons on the battlefield to “make the world safe for democracy.”

You may say, “but this isn’t our foreign policy is it?” Let President Bush answer that question: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” This may seem harmless, but is it? To understand this policy you have to be familiar with an idea called “the democratic peace theory.” This has gained popularity in recent years, but has no historical support. What it claims, in a nutshell, is that democracy is inherently peaceful, and that democracies do not fight other democracies. Therefore, the theory states, if you make all nations in the world a democracy, there will be world peace. The basis for invading Iraq was built on this theory. The belief was that if we could establish a democracy in Iraq that Iraq would become an instant friend to all Western Democracies, and moreover, that democracy would spread throughout the rest of the Middle East. Not have we seen so much utopian fervor in an ideology since Marxist socialism’s claim that socialism would lead to world peace. Unfortunately, as with all utopian ideas, they always work better on paper than they do once placed up against the natural forces of history, culture, religion, and human nature. And unfortunately, like other utopian ideals of its kind, it takes far more violence to bring about the utopia than is experienced in the absence of the utopia itself.

Some have falsely branded the Bush foreign policy as “conservative”. However, the policy, in truth, is the antithesis of conservatism. As a conservative, the very comparison makes my skin crawl.

I don’t believe that that President Obama will continue the Bush Administration’s neo-conservative experiment. After all, he did vote against the invasion of Iraq. However, I don’t believe he did so on a healthy skepticism of state-building. President Obama falls in line more with the Clinton police state model for America—that our role as a nation is basically to be the muscle behind the UN. This is equally as foolhardy as the Bush team policy. I truly hope that President Obama doesn’t fall into this category, but with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, herself quite hawkish, it seems very likely.

What should our foreign policy look like then? Former Conservative Senator Robert Taft, who almost beat Eisenhower for the 1952 Republican Nomination, gave a very great prescription in his 1951 book “A Foreign Policy for Americans”.
“War should never be undertaken or seriously risked except to protect American liberty. Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war...Nor do I believe we can justify war by our natural desire to bring freedom to others throughout the world, although it is perfectly proper to encourage and promote freedom."

Yes, it is proper to encourage and promote freedom abroad, but as Taft is saying here, we can and should do that without getting involved in foreign conflicts. In fact, that is part of what it means to be John Winthrop’s “Shining City on the Hill.” We should always be the first to promote freedom, but we should not do so with the sword.

Don't be mistaken. I'm not advocating of policy where we never go to war. What I am advocating is that we use all available means so as to make war our last option. The world is a chessboard, and America must always endeavor to be the Queen. We do this by having the best military in the world, by having a shrewd President and foreign policy team, exercising skilled diplomacy, and by using our economy strategically. The key is to projecting a temperament that says to the world “Don’t tread on me.” This is the thought that I will close on.

Among some of our early revolutionary flags was one that had a snake in the center on a yellow background and which read, “Don’t Tread on Me.” This flag was an adaption from Benjamin Franklin’s wood carving of a snake cut into eight pieces representing eight early colonies. Benjamin Franklin later described in an essay what he believed to be the representative significance of the snake.
“I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretentions of quarrelling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenceless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defence, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?” –Benjamin Franklin-

List of "Hopes" For President Obama

2009-01-21T23:36:00.000-08:00

The inauguration that took place recently truly was an event for the ages. It has been a long time coming for one of the oldest classes of American people to have an American President rise from their ranks. Our Pilgrim ancestors arrived in 1607 in Virginia and not long after in 1619, our African ancestors began arriving. It is only natural that we have a president that represents this part of our heritage. However, President Obama has much more to do than to merely make history. He has an enormous task ahead of him. The hopes of all Americans, not just certain groups, are relying on him for leadership. And since “hope” has been one of President Obama’s major themes, I have a short list of “hopes” for the Obama Administration that I will post incrementally over the coming days. Here are a few to start:

Hope #1: That President Obama will not seek to solve our economic problems by putting irreversible policies or permanent government institutions in place in order to do so. Whatever policies he chooses, may they be derived from the past experience of our nation, consistent with the constitution, and not derived from the uncharted territory of abstract theory cooked up by technocrats, statists, and leftists.

Hope #2: That President Obama will not continue the ominous trend of governmental growth that we have seen under the Bush Administration. It is impossible to overstate the dangers of too large a federal government. When more and more power drains out of state governments and into the federal government, as sure as the law of cause and effect, you can expect a loss of personal freedom and a weakened national character. Here is a quote by Ezra Taft Benson (former LDS Prophet) from General Conference in 1958. If I could, I would have it printed on leaflets and dropped from airplanes in every city in America. “It is high time that we awakened to the dangers of excessive government in business and agriculture. It is time we realized the perils of too great a centralization of power, and too much dependence on public agencies.” Why is the drain of power out of state government and into the federal government so dangerous? President Benson continued, “Once power is concentrated, even for helpful purposes, it is all there, in one package, where it can be grabbed by those who may not be helpful in its use.” keep in mine, this was in 1958. Just think how much the government has grown since then. So my hope for Obama is that he will not seek to concentrate power in Washington, but diffuse power as is proper throughout the several states as the founders intended to be, and that he will keep the federal government's hands out of areas that the constitution intended to be matters for state governments such as education, health care, safety, moral issues, ect.

Hope #3: That President Obama will seek a policy of fair trade as opposed to the current policy of so-called “free” trade that has been sold to the American people like a can of snake oil. While it may be too late for the once great American auto industry and most other American industry, what little industry we have left we must endeavor to save and what industry we have lost we must endeavor to get back. The national security, sovereignty, and economic stability of our nation depend on it.

List to be continued

Wolf Cries Boy

2009-01-05T23:18:00.000-08:00

If there was one frivolous wish that I could have granted it would be that I could have a good chunk of time set aside to work on projects with each one of my old friends. Whether it be music, short films, or whatever, I wish I had the time to spend with friends collaborating. One such time that I actually got to do this was was with my buddy Spencer when I first got home off of my mission. It was then in the summer of 2002 that Wolf Cries Boy was formed. With a keyboard that I was borrowing from my friend Scott and a guitar that I had recently bought by trading in my student saxophone, Spencer and I collaborated on a total of about 4 songs together. It was summer and the only thing we had to worry about was our telemarketing job where we basically got paid to prank call. It was a short lived music project, but we managed to make a couple of recordings which I will one day make a myspace page for. They were just recorded on my four track, but they sound a lot better than what you will hear below. I forgot that these videos even existed until Spencer sent them to me recently. I was pleasently surprised. It took me back to simpler, more care free times. When I come across more care free times again I hope to collaborate with some of my friends again. Dave has been bugging me about putting together a little duo called "Them Dandy Boys" where I will play guitar and he will play the harmonica. He has in mind that our first album will be "Them Dandy Boys Sing the Hymns." I promised him we will do it someday. I hope it wasn't an empty promise...

This first song was called Via Telepathy

This one was called "When Child Met Gnome". It was our hit single.

2008-12-14T11:58:00.002-08:00

Well, finals are finally over and I am becoming reacquainted with my wife. It turns out that we have a lot in common. It's nice to be able to actually spend intervals longer than thirty minutes at a time with her and Auri. Auri can now have "fun" with two full time playmates. Auri likes to say "fun" a lot now. It's funny. Besides spending time with the fam., I can also actually pick up the guitar again. I plan on trying to write a couple new songs over the break and record at least two new ones. We'll see though. I can also actually read the news again. What's all this about a recession and corporate bailouts? Ha... I will have to start tackling the mountain of reading for next semester soon though. But for at least a few days, that will be out of sight and out of mind. For right now I'm just going to be a pie cooling on a window sill.

Eye of the Storm

2008-12-01T21:03:00.000-08:00

Law School finals are upon me. If I make it out alive, you may hear from me again...

The Upbeat: Documentary on Utah Ska

2008-11-13T22:36:00.000-08:00

If you went to high school in the 90’s, you most likely heard of the musical phenomenon that was Ska music. Especially if you lived in Utah. Have you ever wondered what Ska music is, where it came from, and why it ended up in Utah of all places? Well, the answer to these pressing questions have been answered once and for all in my good friend Brandon Smith’s new documentary, “the Upbeat,” which is now out on DVD.
Very few modern music genres can boast as interesting a history as Ska music can. And the history of the music is really quite complex and so most attempts to tell its story are usually gross misrepresentations. However, The Upbeat manages to do a very good characterization of the music while at the same time managing to explain how and why it has ended up in divers places such as Utah.
The Upbeat tells the story of the music’s journey from the Island of Jamaica in the 60s, to Great Britain in the 70s, to the United States in the 80s , and finally to Utah in the 90s. The back-story of the documentary is fantastic and is fully supported by some of the biggest names in the music that have spanned the years, including Fredrick “Toots” Hibbert of Toots and the Maytals, “Buster Blood Vessel” of Bad Manners, Rob “Bucket” Hingley of the Toasters, and Victor Ruggierro and Dave Hillyard of the Slackers. What is also impressive about these interviews is that they represent all the eras of the music starting with Toots Hibbert from the Jamaican era. The way the documentary ties the story of Ska music itself into Utah’s experience with it was one of the better crafted elements of the film.
I don’t think the purpose of this documentary was merely meant to be a “puff piece” on Ska and Utah, and the documentary’s assessment of the Utah’s experience with music shows that.
The documentary tells the story of how Utah went from being one of the biggest boomtowns for Ska music in the United States to being one of the biggest ghost towns for the music in the United States. The film contrasts what made Ska so popular and trendy in the 90s with what Makes Ska so meaningful today that some are willing to keep the music moving forward despite the fact that its no longer popular and trendy. This includes personal interviews with most of Utah’s biggest 1990’s Ska bands like My Man Friday and Stretch Armstrong and today’s ever faithful leftovers from the 90s that just couldn’t give up the faith, like 2 1/2 White Guys, Fews and Two, and the Upstarts.
The other interesting theme the documentary develops is the “traditional” vs. “third wave” divide in Ska. That is, the debate between those that would rather keep the music pure and reflective of the original Jamaican sound and those that want to modify or modernize it, yet still call it Ska. You probably know where I come down in that debate, and I am quoted in the film in that regard.
Yes, I am in the film. I am actually kind of a substantial part of it. I feel kind of silly admitting this since I am writing this blog on the film and I’m sure that it most likely sounds like a great deal of self-promotion. Not to mention the fact that my critique is obviously biased. However, bias aside, I sincerely thought Brandon did a great job on the film. I’m just glad someone did a documentary on the subject. It’s so nostalgic for me, but I think anyone watching this film would enjoy it, especially if you already enjoy documentary films.
Incidentally, if you are interested in getting a copy, you can go to this link and order one. Along with the DVD comes a Utah Ska compilation CD comprised of several bands from over the years. http://www.theupbeatmovie.com/

Stretch Armstrong

My Man Friday

Me, my friend Ben, and some other people we used to see at shows up in Salt Lake. The kid taking the picture was the kid that we knew best, and obviously he's not in the picture. Look at that goofy smile of mine. What was I doing?

Election Ups and Downs

2008-11-05T16:48:00.000-08:00

Well, although I have many enormous concerns about the direction the country is headed with an Obama Presidency , I nonetheless want to send an indirect "congratulations" his way. What he has accomplished truly was no small feat; And although I disagree with his policies, except for his policy on trade, I think it is a positive thing that we have elected our first black president. If for no other reason, I think think the prospect that a new sense of patriotism might be imbued within much of our country is at lease a positive thing. My hope is that love of country will be more prevalent in the hearts of those that were perhaps cynical before.
I do have at least one solid reason to celebrate however. Proposition 8 passed! The people of our state spoke and chose to define their moral culture as one that values traditional marriage above other consensual relationships. There is nothing unjust about this. This is how republics work. Remember, the constitution leaves matters of morality to the states. It is a "reserved power." Citizens of each state have the right to decide what their moral culture should be, what they value, and what they feel will bring the best calculated results to their state. It is also important to remember that rights given to one group often effect the rights of another group. Giving gay couples the right to marry would infringe upon other's rights to live in a society free from the consequences they would see occurring from gay marriage. It would infringe upon the rights of parents not to have their children be taught in schools that gay marriage is morally equivalent to traditional marriage. It would infringe upon tax payer's rights to withhold their tax dollars from being used to manage a new institution. It would also effect the rights of those that wish to preserve the Christian values that have been preserved in our country for 400 years. After all, Christian values are what our nation was developed upon. In the eyes of many, divergence from those values is an infringement upon the right to preserve those values. Where such conflict of rights exists, it is nearly always best to allow a fair election to decide the conflict between the conflicting rights. That is what we have done here.
The one thing that I must admit that I was completely let down on was that my candidate did not win the election. I was totally sure that Chuck Baldwin had it in the bag. What you haven't heard of him? If you haven't, he was the candidate for the Constitution Party. Given the state of things, it just may be the party that I may put my support behind, even though I have not followed a political party for a number of years and have remained an independent conservative. Maybe next election eh?

Reason # 2:"Marriage does not need MORE competition."

2008-11-01T15:07:00.000-07:00

We are all familiar with the argument that the marriage of gay couples will not take anything away from marriage between a man and a woman. “How can gay marriage possibly harm traditional marriage?”
As argued in the last post, we know of the strains that gay marriage is putting on our national unity. However, there are damaging effects that gay marriage will have on the institution of traditional marriage itself.
This damage will come mainly from the extra competition gay marriage will pose against traditional marriage. The fact is marriage already has plenty of competitors. These competitors have come in the form of pornography, divorce, the new modern living arrangement of “domestic partnerships”, etc. Who can deny that the pornography industry, which has been reported as already making over $8 Billion so far this year, is not a severe strain on marriage? Who can deny that divorce, with rates that fluctuate in the forty-percentile, is not a strain on marriage? And who can deny that the increasing popularity of domestic partnerships, where couples often have all of the benefits of marriage, including tax benefits, without making the big commitment, is not a strain on marriage? With the important role that traditional marriage plays in our society, is it really wise to institutionalize one of traditional marriage’s other competitors, gay marriage?

First, what is this “important role” that traditional marriage serves that makes competition such a concern?
One of the tenants of communism is an abandonment of all classes and relationships not pertaining to the state. This even includes the abandonment of the idea of family and kinship. This is why communism is an inherently flawed economic philosophy. The truth is that families are essential to an economy. What are families if not a small business? Fathers and mothers motivated by their desire to provide for their children to go to work and in the process children are taught, themselves, how to become contributors to the economy, and society in general. Of course the true motivation of families is to experience happiness together, but an efficient economy is inevitably the by-product of this desire. It is these familial bonds, imbued in devotion, that tend to motivate each of its members to achieve beyond the desires and capabilities of the one. I have personal experience with this reality. I have found no other single greater motivation than looking at my daughter and desiring nothing but to be a provider for her. And it is likewise where my wife derives her motivation to do all that she does for the family. This is why it is no secret that traditional homes tend to be more stable and produce better economic results. This is in part because this arrangement has had plenty of practice. The traditional family unit is the foundation of civilization. When governments fail, and when nations collapse, the family unit remains. In short, to destabilize the institution of marriage and the traditional family would be to risk destabilizing our economy and hence our nation as a whole.

So just how will gay marriage become a “competitor” to traditional marriage simply by being legalized? The answer is simple: By institutionalizing gay marriage it becomes, as all new institutions do, entrenched in the system and immediately begins to seek self preservation. This is why decreasing the size of the government once it has grown is so difficult, because institutions become self preserving powers unto themselves. They demand more funding, more say, and more power. This is not being cynical, this is being factual. This is the nature of government. Once gay marriage is institutionalized, it will enter into direct competition with traditional marriage for scarce resources and limited privileges.
However, institutionalization also does something else. It increases the demand for that institution. Once a government legalizes something, they make it “moral” within the minds of many in the culture. It becomes no longer a socially unacceptable practice, but a mere “old fashion” bigoted “religious” belief. This is the way that the ‘ever so enlightened’ Europeans view the issue. This is not the way we need to view this issue. It is time that we get our heads out of the clouds. We are treading on very thin ice. We are quite literally toying with the fabric of existence. The consequences of our liberality in these matters will not bear the utopian fruits that are envisioned. Institutions that have developed organically throughout the centuries, once plucked from their roots, cannot be replaced, but must be re-grown.

It should not be the ideological goal of this nation to spread "equality" to illogical absurdity. It should be the goal of this nation to preserve our Freedoms by recognizing their limits-to preserve our prosperity by recognizing that each citizen must make a sacrifice- and, in short, to preserve our Republic, which has been handed down and entrusted in our hands, recognizing that it belongs not only to us, but to those that came before us, who won it with their blood.

"Something to Vote for"

2008-10-27T19:08:00.000-07:00

In this election year it is no secret that I do not have a candidate—a depressing prospect for someone like me. However, there is one issue that I can feel good about voting for. As many of you know, we have Proposition 8 up for vote here in California, which in essence will amend the California Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
The first and obvious reason for supporting this initiative is a matter of religion. Many of you know that I am a Latter Day Saint, and the President of our Church (the Prophet) has been very explicit in directing that the saints out here are to be promoting the proposition and campaigning on its behalf.
However, while my religious beliefs may inform me that gay marriage is immoral, there are several additional reasons why I believe that Proposition 8 is not only right morally, but why I believe that it is vital to the preservation of our republic.
Like I’m sure each of you have done, I too have contemplated long and hard about the argument that denying gay couples the right to marry is an unfair violation of equal rights. This argument is compelling, but I argue that there are far too many other serious considerations that outweigh this seeming injustice. Over the next couple of weeks I will post a few different reasons for this assertion, of which this post is the first.

Reason #1: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Like President Lincoln said at another seminal moment in American history, when he quoted Christ, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The preservation of any civilization depends on a common culture. An essential element in culture is what is defined by its people to be moral and immoral. Civilizations that disagree on these matters often suffer disarray or end in war.
These divisions creeping among us do not unify us, nor will they. As President Lincoln predicted of slavery, the country would remain divided until one side or the other won. Such a dichotomy of values cannot live in harmony. This is not to say that we are “intolerant” of one another. Most of us that disagree with gay marriage know gay people and get along with them just fine. We disagree, and do so respectfully, yet at the end of the day we disagree. Disagreements might be manageable on an individual level, but when it comes time to write out national and state budgets, to draw up national and state laws, and to decide matters of peace and war, the value of a unified body politic cannot be overstated.
This country is facing a dilemma. The question has become which we value more, “diversity” or “unity.” I am not proposing a Harry Potter like prophesy where “either can live while the other survives.” The fact is, our nation has always enjoyed a healthy amount of diversity. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants—immigrants that have at times brought competing values. But it has always been our highest aspiration to maintain a sense of national unity. It was for this reason that the congress placed the phrase E pluribus unum, Latin for "Out of Many, One," on our national seal in 1782. Diversity has always had its place as long as our diversity did not disrupt our national unity. However, there is a difference between “diversity” and just plain deviation or defiance. What I am proposing is that if we choose to value diversity over the values that have so long unified us as a nation, the classic American values of Christianity, free enterprise, small government, and checks and balances, we will cease to be a unified country and will be forced to face the consequences that follow.
A few weeks ago I got a hold of a “Yes on 8” poster and put it up in our apartment window. By the very next day our neighbors had put up several homemade signs in protest to ours, urging to “vote NO on 8.” Since then, they have replaced their homemade signs with proper manufactured ones. They read: “Equality for All: Vote No on 8.” It is really quite intersting--Next door neighbors at such odds. It has left me to ponder. We have to ask ourselves, is the right for gay couples to marry really more important than the unity of our nation? Are we truly prepared to declare “Equality for All” , “Unity for None?”

Mission Statement

2008-10-17T21:05:00.000-07:00

This being my first post, I suppose it is appropriate establish what I intend to do with this blog-a mission statement of sorts.

Since myspace is obviously played out, and blogs seem to be the way of the future, I guess it's as good a time as any to jump on the blog train. Really though, my myspace page is dedicated to music, which I will still discuss here as well, but I want to be able to post on a variety of topics. This may vary from film to religion to my everyday family life.

A common topic, however, will be politics...oops...I lost you right there didn't I? Well, hopfully I can talk you into coming back despite this. Here goes. Yes, yes, my politics are conservative. Sean Hannity you say? No... I should warn you from the outset that I do not subscribe to pop-culture politics, so if you're expecting to read a regurgitation of what Rush Limbah said, you may not be interested. However, you may be even more certain that the content will in no way reflect the ever scheming liberal media cartel. I would like to consider myself an independent thinker who just can't help having a conservitive mind.

I may not be the best up to date blogger. I am so busy in school that I hardly have time for anything, but I promise to make a valiant effort in posting when ever I can.

very warmest regards

-Andy Fackrell-