Obama’s New Socialist Auto Policies

On May 19, 2009, in Communism, Fascism, Socialism, by Trenton Hansen

The headline reads, Obama’s new rules will transform US auto fleet. One question–what US auto fleet? There is no US auto fleet, unless all vehicles in the US are owned by the government. With these new developments, that may not be far off.

The Obama Administration imposed new rules for the automotive industry today, set to go into effect by 2016. The rules are designed to increase mileage in all vehicles sold in the US.

Of course, there is a price tag associated with imposing these new regulations. The Obama team is estimating an additional cost of $1300 per vehicle. The actual cost will be closer to $7000. The additional costs will be the result of car makers needing to retool their factories to comply with the new laws.

Critics might argue that CAFE laws were in place years before Obama showed up. Yes, and they were wrong then, too. Obama is taking them to the next level.

Here is a rule of thumb I wish every politician would be required to honor, and every American would memorize. Any law that requires you to pay money to be in compliance is bad law. Good, positive law shouldn’t cost you a dime.

Obama is dictating changes in how the automotive industry will operate for the next decade or more, without any Constitutional authority. He controls how companies can operate, what kind of car you can buy, and how you can spend your money. Property rights just went out the door.

Obama is working toward an increase in gas prices, as well. He wants to see more hybrids on the road, but “automakers have said they need stable, relatively high gasoline prices to create a market for electric vehicles.”

Sales of hybrid cars have fallen drastically along with the drop in gas prices. If Obama is to get his wish, he will have to put restrictions on gas supplies in the US to keep prices artificially high, which means he will effectively control the production of gasoline.

The new standards will also mean smaller, lighter cars, which in turn will mean more traffic fatalities and higher costs of repair.

Every step Obama takes brings his Socialist Utopia a little closer to reality. Conservatives should be fighting him tooth and nail every step of the way.

By 2010, we will need to have people ready to take elected office who are not afraid to roll back everything he has done, who value Liberty and Freedom more than Popularity. It will not be enough to do half the job. Remember that Ronald Reagan fell short on his promise to eliminate the Department of Education. We cannot fall short now. The stakes are much too high.

I’m not one to fall for conspiracy theories. I have plenty of experience with such groups from the 1990′s; it left a bad taste in my mouth. The 9/11 Truthers have not helped to change my perceptions, either.

Once in a while, though, something crosses my desk that I have to look twice at. This is one of them.

The folks over at RepubX alerted me to a bill moving through Congress now (it has actually already passed the House and is waiting for a vote in the Senate) labeled HR 985. Having read through their explanation of the bill, I went to GovTrack.us to see if I could verify what is being said. You can read a summary of the bill there.

According to GovTrack.us, the bill passed the House by voice vote. In other words, no record was kept of how each Rep. voted on this bill.

It is a bitter irony that a bill which promises the “Free Flow of Information” should be voted upon anonymously. If this bill will do what RepubX says it will, we should marching on Washington tomorrow.

Tagged with:
 

Join The Patrick Henry Caucus

On May 15, 2009, in Constitution, Government & Law, by Trenton Hansen

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” – Patrick Henry

The Patrick Henry Caucus needs our help to grow. We need to make our organizations reflect the number of Conservative Americans that actually exist out there.

We are not the minority, though the Move-on Media is working hard to make things appear that way.

Please join the group, volunteer, donate. Anything you can do to help bring America back to us.

The Patrick Henry Caucus – Sign Me Up.

British Labour Party Looking At Big Loss

On May 13, 2009, in Government & Law, by Trenton Hansen

Damage limitation is Labour’s only option | William Rees-Mogg – Times Online.

“June 4 will be a very important day in British politics…”

“It is even possible that this might prove to be the last Labour Government…”

Looks like the Brits have had enough of what we are just now starting.

Tagged with:
 

Rethinking The 17th Amendment

On May 13, 2009, in Constitution, Government & Law, Socialism, by Trenton Hansen

The formation of a new conservative focus group, the Patrick Henry Caucus, causes me to repost this article, originally written in July of 2004. I think it is important to repost now because of the increasing interest in, and focus on, States’ Rights. For example, Montana has recently passed legislation that would bar the Federal Government from regulating firearms manufactured and kept within Montana’s borders; Utah is considering similar legislation. Texas is not only working on firearms legislation, but also a bill that would declare Texas a sovereign entity in relation to the Federal government.

All of these are great ideas but, so far, I have not heard anyone proposing the one thing that is essential to any States’ Rights movement–the restoration of representation for the States in the Senate. The repeal of the 17th Amendment will return the Constitution to it’s original form where States’ Rights are recognized at the national level, and I will be proposing such an initiative at the Patrick Henry Caucus formation meeting this Thursday.

The Founders sought to create a system of government based upon checks and balances on power. Their efforts have suffered many attacks in the succeeding 220 years since the adoption of the Constitution. But, in my opinion, none have been so effective at destroying what they sought to accomplish as the 17th Amendment, which reads,

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The Constitution originally laid out a very simple, but effective, way to separate the powers of government in the Legislature. They separated the Legislature into two houses–one elected by the people and one appointed by the Legislatures of the several States. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

Each senator was to be appointed to that position in the national government. This is a very important point that should not be overlooked or misinterpreted. Government appointments are oftentimes construed as a form of corruption. The Founders didn’t think so. In fact, the Senate was to be appointed for the very purpose of preventing corruption. Allow me an explanation.

The members of the House of Representatives are elected, according to the Constitution, by popular vote every two years. This puts them in constant need to be responsive to their constituents if they want to get re-elected. If they aren’t doing what their constituents want, they shouldn’t be re-elected. The short time frame also helps to minimize the damage that could be done to our form of limited government. The combination of short terms, and direct accountability to the people, was intended to create an environment hostile to the creation of Legislation. Congress wasn’t created to “do something” because the Founder’s didn’t want a lot of laws being passed by Congress. In the Federalist #62, Madison and Hamilton argue,

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.”

The Senate, on the other hand, was intended to be a deliberative body. The six-year terms would give enough time to accomplish something, while still short enough to keep them in mindfulness of their purpose in being elected. Additionally, because the Senate was appointed by the voice of the Legislatures of the several States, it was hoped the influence of party (or faction) would not become an issue. The current methods used by Senators to get re-elected, i.e. gathering campaign contributions from special interests, would not have been possible previous to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act would be unnecessary under the conditions that obtained under the original program laid out in the Constitution, as the effects the Act was intended to combat would be very difficult to achieve.

The appointment of Senators by the States was meant to assure that the interests of the States were represented in the federal government, a very sticky point for many of the convention delegates. During the New York ratifying convention, Alexander Hamilton sought to comfort the skeptics of the Constitution by pointing out,

“When you take a view of all the circumstance which have been recited, you will certainly see that the senators will constantly look up to the state governments with an eye of dependence and affection. If they are ambitious to continue in office, they will make every prudent arrangement for this purpose, and, whatever may be their private sentiments or politics, they will be convinced that the surest means of obtaining reelection will be  a uniform attachment to the interests of their several states.”

Today, we see quite readily that the 17th Amendment has not improved upon that idea.

An example of how the system has been corrupted from its original purpose as a result of the 17th Amendment can be found by examining the campaign contributions of a certain Senator currently serving. Campaign finance records show that Chris Dodd, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, had only five (5) contributors from his home State in the last election. The vast majority of his campaign contributions came from special interests outside his home State. How can he claim to represent the State of Connecticut when he is beholden to other interests? The New Testament points out that “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.” The conflict that arises in someone trying to serve two masters was precisely why a system of checks and balances was put in place by the Founders, who understood its power as an effective hedge against corruption.

Another example is the case of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which failed by a vote of 50-48.  Some senators voted against the bill on the grounds that an Amendment would be unnecessary, and the decision should be best left to the States. That would be true if the composition of the Senate was still decided by the States. But the States are now subject to the whims of the federal courts, which will likely someday rule to force the states to recognize gay marriage against the will of the people of those States, because the States are left without representation in the Senate.

The appointment of Senators not only provided the States with representation at the Federal level, it also provided an effective check against the power of the popularly elected House of Representatives, and against the Presidency. This check was essential to preserve the Federalist character of the government established by the Founding Fathers.  The States were to act as a check and balance against encroachment by the Federal government, and to help curb the appetites of the People, which could lead to the country’s ruin; the Senate was the States’ first line of defense. Roger Sherman expressed as much in a letter to John Adams in July, 1789,

“The senators, being eligible by the legislatures of the several states, and dependent on them for reelection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislative or executive of the United States.”

The Founders hoped that the appointment of Senators would prevent partisanship in Congress. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said, “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party generally. . . . A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” But, since the adoption of the 17th Amendment, the Senate has become increasingly partisan, especially in the last 20 years. When chosen by the several State Legislatures, the Senators would be two people thought to best represent the needs and views of the State regardless of party affiliation. An easy choice today would be one from the Republicans and one from the Democrats, thus providing equal representation for both major parties in the Senate. But if the Senate grew too partisan, the States could simply choose along different criteria. In the end, the state would choose its representation. Additionally, if a state had problems choosing senators, only that state, rather than the entire country, would suffer.

The 17th Amendment was adopted to supposedly streamline this portion of the Constitution. According to John MacMullin, the primary reason for ratification of the 17th Amendment was difficulties in the appointment process. He writes,

“The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate. For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months.”(emphasis in the original)

However, the procedural issue was one that could have been easily solved. The current contest between Democrat Al Franken and Republican Norm Coleman is evidence that ratifying the 17 Amendment did not have the desired effect after all. Minnesota may not have a sitting Senator at the moment, but judging from statements by the Founder’s, they didn’t believe that would pose too great a problem. The passage of the 17th Amendment was a shortsighted answer with long-term ramifications.

The consequences of the actions taken to “correct” this problem are manifold. The balance of power which once existed between the States and the Federal government was completely destroyed. The change from appointment by the States to popular election of Senators took our system of government further away from a Republic, and a long way towards a pure Democracy. In the view of the Founders, pure Democracy was to be strictly avoided. James Madison, in Federalist #10, writes, “…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” What was intended to correct the problems of deadlocked state legislatures has created a national Legislature composed of elected officials more beholden to special interests (what James Madison referred to as factions), than to the people they were elected to represent. It would be in the nation’s best interest to have a few states occasionally experience temporary problems choosing their senators, than for the entire country to suffer under the tyrannies of special interests. What’s more, when weighing the temporary loss of a sitting Senator against the permanent, ongoing damage to the Republic brought about by the current “solution,” there is little question which is the better choice.

Arguments for repealing the 17th Amendment range from keeping the Constitution pure to solving the campaign finance problem. State representation at the federal level, one of the major checks on federal power, is now virtually non-existent. The Senate is divided sharply along party lines and, in its current character, does not represent the views of the majority of the states or of the people. A state-appointed Senate also would, in the best interests of the states they represent, shut down federal judicial usurpation of State authority. A popularly elected Senate, bought and paid for by special interests, will never accomplish these tasks.

The Patrick Henry Caucus is being formed in an effort reestablish the representation for the States in the National legislature. For nearly 100 years, the States have had no voice in Federal legislation, and we are now seeing the consequences of our shortsightedness. It’s time to rectify that mistake. The Patrick Henry Caucus needs our support, but the movement will be short-lived if we do not remove the one great obstacle to our success. It’s time to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Arlen Specter Defects to Democratic Party

On April 28, 2009, in Government & Law, Socialism, by Trenton Hansen

CNN.com reports just a few minutes ago that Arlen Specter has switched his party affiliation, and registered as a Democrat. Specter, a long-time Senator from Pennsylvania, has been criticized by Conservatives as being Republican in name only, supporting far more liberal causes than most of his Republican colleagues. Frankly, it wasn’t really a question whether, but when.

Sen. Arlen Specter

Sen. Arlen Specter

Specter’s move would give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, provided Al Franken wins his bid for the Senate in Minnesota against incumbent Norm Coleman. At this point, it is up to the Supreme Court of Minnesota to determine the outcome. Their ruling will affect the national political landscape.

I am left to wonder what Harry Reid promised Specter in return for his allegiance. Specter complained that the Republican Party has shifted far to the right in recent years. But a closer look reveals that to be a poor excuse. Conservatives across the nation are up in arms right now because the Republicans have ignored them for the most part, governing like Democrats in the last several years. If  Specter really wanted to leave the party because of a shift to the right, why didn’t he do it in 1994 at the pinnacle of Conservative influence in the Republican Party?

This is about Liberal Leftists in government taking more and more power by usurpation, rather than by election. They couldn’t care less what the people want. Pennsylvania didn’t elect a Democrat.

I am anxious to see what effect this has on the electorate. It will give the Liberals in the Senate carte blanche to move their agenda, and shift America even further to the Left. Are we ready to have nationalized health forced down our throats? How about nationalization of the auto industry? The coal industry?

There may be some hope in this, when all is said and done. The Liberal Democrats will be so carried away in the euphoria of their newly acquired power, that they will charge ahead undaunted and unafraid. To borrow a quote from Jeff Goldblum’s character in Jurassic Park, they will be so caught up in whether they can do a thing, they won’t stop to consider whether or not they should. The result may be historic landslide victories for Conservative Republicans in the next three or four elections, as the remaining Liberal Senators are all weeded out.

Patience and Faith, my friends.

I am pleased to announce the public launch of the new website design for the Constitutional Principles Policy Council, for which which I serve as Director of Policy Affairs.

Our goal is to return government to the principles of its framers. Our Mission Statement explains our methods:

At the national level, and void of partisanship, Constitutional Principles Policy Council is dedicated to returning government to the principles of its framers in the following ways:

  • We educate citizens in “Public Virtue” and “Civic Duty”—as understood by the founders—for application in today’s world.
  • We provide voters with the tools and teach them how to find, recruit, and propel into office exceptional candidates of principled character, while reducing the necessity for exorbitant funds to support the effort.
  • We research the framers’ views on the critical issues of our day; form objective representations of their most likely solutions; analyze which position best preserves liberty, justice, and the general public welfare; and draft policy proposals from this research to provide to Congress.
  • We bring together friends of the Constitution from across the land in order to build a unified front for promoting constitutional policies and practices in federal government.

I invite you to come visit our beautifully redesigned website at http://www.constitutionalprinciples.org. Look over our featured sections, and browse through our research areas. If you like what you see there, please help us in our cause by making a donation.

Our government will not change until We the People are educated enough about the principles of the Constitution to know where the problems lie, and what we must do to solve them.

Provo Tax Day Tea Party

On April 9, 2009, in Conservatism, Constitution, Government & Law, by Trenton Hansen

David Kirkham of Kirkham Motor Sports has organized a Tax Day Tea Party for Utah County residents. His efforts are nothing short of heroic. As of April 8, 2009, there are 600 people signed up in Utah County. That is just staggering!

PLEASE NOTE: THE LOCATION HAS CHANGED

Please join us on April 15, 2009 at the Old Utah County Courthouse of the corner of University Ave. and Center St. in Provo from 5:00 to 7:00 PM.

Scheduled speakers include Third District Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Provo Mayor Lewis Billings. Rep. Chaffetz will be speaking at 5:00 sharp, so please come early. You won’t want to miss anything.

Also, please remember that these protests are not about attacking any specific government official, or impeaching Barak Obama, or anything like that. This is about restoring Constitutional government to America. We are gathering to let our public servants across the country know that we surround them, and that they answer to us, we do not answer to them.

I personally know of individuals who are opposed to these protests who plan to be present to disrupt the activities. Be aware that anything you say to them or do to them will be used to discredit the entire movement, not only on individual blogs, but in the mainstream media as well. Do not engage them. They do not have honorable motives.

I recommend responding to their heckling only with this, from Samuel Adams:

“If ye love [redistributed] wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” (Insert mine)

Please join us as we peaceably remind our public servants that we are a free, sovereign people. Let’s celebrate our Independence early this year.

Other Tea Parties in Utah:

Pres. Bush’s Farewell Speech

On January 16, 2009, in Government & Law, by Trenton Hansen

Here is the full video of Pres. Bush’s Farewell Speech, in two parts. We say farewell to a good man.

Part 1

Part 2

Farewell Mr. Bush. And thank you for your service to our Nation.

Tagged with:
 

The New Face Of Tyranny

On November 9, 2008, in Government & Law, Ideology & Philosophy, by Trenton Hansen

President-elect Barak Obama announced today that he is considering the use of Executive Order to overturn some of President Bush’s policies, specifically regarding offshore drilling and Stem Cell research. If he reinstates the prohibition on offshore drilling, we can expect to see an immediate rise in the price of oil, which will cause the price of gas to increase.

This is one of my primary gripes about the current state of Washington DC; the rule of law is almost meaningless now. What’s more, the use of Executive Orders, by either Republicans or Democrats, contributes to the erosion of the rule of law in America. Both sides wield them as political weapons to undo the previous administration’s “mistakes.” In their selfish grabs for power, neither party recognizes the consequences of their actions.

For example, oil companies watched the repeal of the EO that prohibited drilling off the continental shelf, and yet did nothing. But their inaction was a carefully considered response to Washington’s instability. Most oil companies expected the Democrats to reinstate the prohibition on drilling on the shelf as soon as they possibly could, and so did not move to take advantage of the opportunity. They knew that doing so would simply be a waste of time and money.

If Washington really followed the rule of law, these companies could move ahead confident that the actions of government generally could be predicted. As things now stand, predictability is limited to the party level, which results in being able to predict the actions of one party or another. But it is impossible to determine which party will hold power after the next election, and this uncertainty effectively freezes innovation and research in a host of industries including oil and gas.

The deemphasizing of the rule of law has other effects as well. Proposition 8 in California is an example of how the rule of law is ignored by the liberals in social policy. The people have spoken twice about their decisions on gay marriage, yet liberals vow to continue to challenge the voice of the People in court. How they intend to get the courts to overturn the State Constitution is yet unknown, but the fact that they are even considering it is disturbing.

Additionally, the disregard for the rule of law causes voter apathy, as people realize that politicians have only their own power and special interests at heart, and fail to show interest in the will of the people. This is specifically what the people were hoping Obama was promising to change. How disappointed those people will be.

The problem ultimately lies with unchecked Liberalism. Liberalism is an ideology that considers all things fluid. The Constitution is a living, breathing document. Law can be created or overturned by the courts. Any interpretation of the law is justified, while strict constructionism is rejected. The Rule of Law and Liberalism are mutually exclusive. Liberalism is truly the rule of will, which has historically been the definition of tyranny.

The people of California arrived at these decisions through legitimate democratic processes. But the result is not what Liberals want, so they refuse to acknowledge the results. This rejection directly undermines those democratic processes. In their stubborn selfishness, Liberals will ultimately destroy the very system of government, the beauties of which they are so fond of lecturing us about.

Modern Liberalism sees the state as the ultimate source of power and authority. The people are simply assets of the state. The elitist nature of Liberalism says that most of the people cannot take care of themselves, and therefore it is right and just that the elite should take care of them. The people have a voice only inasmuch as they are allowed a voice by the ruling elite, which happens only when the message matches that of the elite. The idea that the state should exist only to carry out the will of the people is anathema to Liberalism.

In summary, Liberalism, as pointed out by Jonah Goldberg, is another name for Fascism. Until we can root out Liberalism, America will decay and Liberty will continue to decline in America and around the world.