Posts Tagged ‘politics’

HE’S A LOBBYIST

March 23, 2016

HE’S A LOBBYIST.

Who doesn’t hate K Street lobbyists? If you’ve read EXTORTION, How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets; by Peter Schweitzer, you know how toxic and corrupting the flow of money and the counter-flow of influence are to the process of governing at every level, from county to federal, and at every step between.

You know that between bribes and blackmail, there is no more than a handful of people in political leadership positions in Washington or in any other body of American government who are not owned or rented by somebody, and/or currently for rent.

What is the one, most damning, yet eminently provable charge a person could lodge against Donald Trump? What does he not only admit, but brag about?

HE IS A LOBBYIST.

His successes in business are at least to a great degree, attributable to his exercise of influence (read: MONEY) on politicians and regulators, and their willingness to do his will. He has admitted to that — and even bragged about it — on uncounted occasions.

HE IS A LOBBYIST not for some third party — a company, a union, an industry association, or for a foreign government, or a massive bank — but FOR HIMSELF. He is a lobbyist for Donald Trump, Inc. He buys, or rents, influence and favors, from people who are willing to do that business with him.

Giving a lobbyist the big chair in the Oval Office, letting him occupy the position any lobbyist would sell his soul to influence, just doesn’t seem like a good idea. Trump is not Satan, and he’s not Hitler or Stalin, or Mussolini. He’s a lobbyist, and I just don’t relish the thought of a lobbyist as president.

Perfection Is Unnecessary; It’s the Constitution That Counts

March 10, 2013

Forgive me if I’ve restated the obvious, or RE-restated the obvious that has already been stated recently, but I want to emphasize that

(1) No candidate is perfect; and

(2) A perfect candidate is not necessary.

Government is an aggregate effect, as is an economy. An economy is the aggregate effect of millions of millions of individual transactions (or refusals to transact). A government is the aggregate effect of millions of laws, regulations court decisions, bureaucratic actions or inactions, law enforcement actions and decisions, and abuse and neglect at all levels, including in the  decisions, or the lack thereof, of individual citizens and non-citizens, voters and non-voters.

A perfect president is desirable, but not required. A perfect legislator is desirable, but not required. A perfect judge is desirable, but not required. If.

If we have a Congress whose majority understood and respected the Constitution, NO president could get away with what presidents have been getting away with for the last hundred years, or so.

If we have a lazy Congress whose goal seems to be making itself irrelevant to the operation of government, as Congresses have appeared to be for that same, hundred-year interval, an extremely disciplined, Constitutional president might temper or even thwart the negligence and corruption of a Congress.

Either a Constitutional Congress, or a Constitutional president, could thwart or reverse an overreaching federal judiciary.

That is the lasting beauty of our checks-and-balances system — if and when it is applied.

If the aggregate legislator, judge and chief executive are Constitutionalists, the evil or stupidity of a few individuals is cancelled out by the actions of the whole.

To get a Constitutional government, and keep it, requires a vocal, relentless and determinedly Constitutional electorate. The aggregate effect of a Constitutional electorate outweighs the efforts of the stupid and corrupt few — or, of the corrupt many, if the Constitutionalists are sufficiently relentless and vocal.

Again, forgive me for any redundancy, or for re-stating the obvious, but there it is. Perfection in government is unnecessary, if the aggregate effect is Constitutional, and if the aggregate voter keeps it that way.

Warm and Fuzzy versus Fangs and Venom — Predators Know the Difference.

December 17, 2012
Coyote_arizonaWikipediaC1

Coyotes prefer prey WITHOUT fangs and venom, thank you, very much.

Rabbit_in_montana

Coyotes, the media and Progressive elites — pragmatic predators all — prefer THESE as prey…

Rattlesnake_Dance_01

… Over THESE, as prey, although both are edible. Do we know WHY?
Yes, we do, even if the wizards in the media-government complex do not.

Just as a hungry coyote understands the important difference between a rabbit and a rattlesnake, a would-be armed robber, or a glory-seeking spree killer, understands the difference between a victim who may be armed, and one who certainly is not.

Both the rabbit and the rattler can be eaten, but preying on rattlers involves considerably more risk than preying on rabbits. Why? Fangs and venom, that’s why. A coyote or a human predator that chooses the wrong prey is more likely to end up floating, face-down, in the gene pool.

There has been supportive chatter in the media-government complex  for decades, on the efforts of the UN and American “Progressives” to  get small arms out of the hands of individuals, and make them a government monopoly.

The media tend to chide Americans who cherish their Second Amendment right, for being afraid the UN wants to take away “their deer rifles.” Silly Second Amendment types! All the UN is concerned about, the editorials say, is “rocket launchers and machine guns.”

Of course, that’s a lie. The UN, whose membership is composed mainly of tin-horn dictatorships and bankrupt, socialist dis-utopias, and the Progressives, who cherish their own safety enough to hire armed bodyguards, want to relieve all of us of all of our firearms, down to the last pellet gun and antique flintlock. It’s for our own good, right?

Hardly.

The UN’s problem is that an armed populace is a terrible inconvenience to a would-be despot. Armed citizens may not go along with certain kinds of government excesses, such as pogroms, purges, gulags, concentration camps and slavery.

Armed citizens introduce an element of risk and expense to such ventures that discourages governments from undertaking them. Beneath their veneer of compassion and care for our collective safety, the Progressives share the UN’s concerns.

Armed citizens are also a nuisance to the dictator next door, whose stupid policies have wasted all his country’s resources. He must now prey on his neighbors to satisfy his needs, and “reallocating their resources” may be difficult, if his neighbors are armed. Charitable by nature, perhaps, they may not share the great leader’s vision for their future. Their privately-owned weapons may frustrate their acquisitive neighbors’ plans long enough for regular military forces to show up and end them altogether.

On a much smaller scale, armed citizens are also a nuisance to the individual predator, who dislikes assuming the risk of attacking a crowd of rabbits, only to find that one or more of them has hidden rattlesnake fangs and venom, and the will and skill to use them in his defense, or in defense of innocents around him.

America’s founders understood this principle of nature (and of human nature), and built the individual right to be armed into our Constitution.

Coyotes, armed robbers and dictators understand this principle.

Someone, please explain it to the nation’s media-government complex, and to our Progressive elite.

One Blog, One Vote. Not Wasting It.

August 31, 2012

I’m following the comments on the conservative blogs and social media since the Republican National Convention, and I see two, diverging threads of interest.

One is cautiously optimistic that Romney WILL actually be better for the future of the USA than four more years of Obamanation.

The other sees no differences between them, and sees the choice as binary — either Obama OR Romney — is a false choice. Somehow, they believe, voting for a third-party candidate, or sitting out the presidential race, or even sitting out the whole election, is the only honorable and/or Godly choice. Romney is simply too flawed to be worthy of their votes.

I can identify strongly with portions of both threads, but the appeal of the sitting-it-out option for me is purely emotional, and I’m over it. I was angry about the selection process that gave us Romney, but hardly surprised. The same backstage manipulators that gave us McCain were responsible for giving us Romney, and I’m angry about that, too.

Anger, however, is a dangerous motivation for any decision, but especially for deciding how, or whether, to vote, and especially dangerous this time around.

Alan Keyes, whom I admire and respect, seems firmly convinced that Romney is evil, and only trivially different from Obama. He thinks voting for Romney “just” to keep Obama from a second term is tantamount to selling his soul. Others, friends whose opinions I take seriously, believe that, as well, to one degree or another.

A subset of the above group think Romney is just this election’s John McCain, but I think John McCain was not only a RINO, but an abysmal candidate for President. He may have been able to convince enough Arizonans over the last hundred years to keep him in the Senate, but he was either utterly inept at running for the presidency, or actively defeating himself at every turn, because he couldn’t have done a worse job of running for president if he really didn’t want to be president.

Either way, Romney is far better as a candidate. At least that is my current assessment, based on his acceptance speech at the RNC and his actions in the first day after that.

Having vacillated in 2008 between Joseph Farah’s “None of the Above” position, and writing in Alan Keyes because I could not bring myself to vote for McCain, and because there was no way in Hell I was going to vote for Obama, I finally settled on writing-in Keyes. I don’t regret that vote, because McCain was, and is, as sleazy and success-driven a politician as Obama, but with more history to prove it.

Contrary to what some of my Republican friends say, I have no faith that McCain would have been a better president that Obama has been. Where Obama is ideologically driven to do whatever is worst for America, I believe John McCain would have done whatever his sycophants and manipulators could persuade him to do, and he was as much a chump for the global warming scams and other liberal pretexts for grabbing power, and for establishment Republican “inclusiveness” and “compassionate conservatism” scams as any RINO, and as most out-front Liberals.

While his motivations might have been portrayed as noble, his results would have differed only in degree from those of Obama. If McCain could rationalize any decision with his imaginary legacy, or his chances at re-election, or that coveted chairman-emeritus spot on some tax-money-laundering “non-profit” foundation, he would have done so, and the Constitution, “quote-Conservatives-unquote,”  and his country could be damned.

Any reasoned comparison between McCain and Romney will go in favor of Romney, but, who cares?  Romney isn’t running against McCain. McCain isn’t running, Gingrich isn’t running, Bachmann isn’t running, Cain isn’t running, and Santorum isn’t running.

Ron Paul is running, as always. But it doesn’t matter, because he is a reptile with not more than one view or belief in a hundred in common with me, so he might as well not be running. Ron Paul zealots did their best to steal the nomination, and failed spectacularly. It was a pratfall-on-a-banana-peel, slapstick failure – one that would embarrass into silence and self-imposed obscurity anyone capable of embarrassment.

I now know what another four years of Obama would bring, and I see voting for him, not voting, or voting for a write-in or third-party candidate as an absolute betrayal of my country.

With the huge effort at vote fraud Obama and his troops will undertake, and have already undertaken, including registering illegal aliens, registering dead and non-existent voters, busing union stooges from one polling place to another to vote multiple times, forging and mass-producing fraudulent absentee and early ballots, the living, legitimate voters may be outnumbered. (That isn’t hyperbole. In more than one precinct in 2008, actual votes cast outnumbered registered voters significantly. Vote fraud is a Democrat industry. Fraudulent votes are the one commodity they produce on a regular basis.)

I will be casting my one, legal vote for Romney.

Arithmetic is relentlessly non-ideological, and absolutely dispassionate. My one, legal vote for Romney will require two votes for Obama from the dead, and/or cartoon characters, and/or union thugs, and/or incarcerated felons, and/or illegal aliens, to put him back in the lead.

One vote is all I have, and I’ll be damned (with apologies to my friends who think I will be jeopardizing my soul) if I’ll give Obama even the slightest advantage by wasting it.

Hard Choices Versus Bad Choices — There IS a Difference

August 10, 2012
Image

Do I take my chances on the fire escape, jump to my death, or quietly barbeque when the fire gets there? I’m trying the fire escape. (Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.)

Here’s what I think about having to vote for Romney:

I can just throw myself out the window of my burning, ninth-floor hotel room, arriving with a splash on the pavement, or on the hood of some unlucky illegal alien’s cab.

I can try the rickety-looking fire escape, MAYBE making it to the ground at less than the speed dictated by the acceleration of gravity on a falling body, MAYBE living another day.

OR,  I can wait for the fire to cook me alive.

Rotten choice? Hell, yes.

Hard choice? Hell, no. I’m trying the fire escape — Romney 2012.

A Kinder, Gentler Martial Law

May 29, 2012
A kindler, gentler martial Law

GOP senators have appealed to President Obama to soften the impact of martial law imposed before the national election.

Republican Senators Offer Alternative Plan for Martial Law

(Washington, October 29th, 2012)

In the wake of President Obama’s declaration of martial law last week, just weeks before the 2012 general election, moderate Senate Republicans have proposed some alternatives to the President’s executive orders authorizing indefinite detention without trial and civil asset forfeiture.

The measures were described as “draconian” by former talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who has not been heard from in several days. Senate Republicans Olympia Snow, John  McCain and minority leader Mitch McConnell came forward today with what they call “a reasonable alternative” to the emergency measures. They say they have met with Senators Harry Reid and Dick Durbin to negotiate the release on recognizance of several Republican senators, congressmen, and state governors, all of whom had been “very critical” of the emergency measures.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell spoke for the group:

“In this time of crisis, we must reach across the aisle to our colleagues and come to some sort of compromise on these executive orders. While we appreciate the urgency and severity of the situation that faces the President, we believe it is possible to deal with our unfortunate circumstances with a more moderate, measured approach.”

“We propose to allow those thousands of Americans being held incommunicado and without legal representation or charges being filed, to be released on their own recognizance from the detention camps around the country, after signing an agreement not to participate in political activity.

“They should be allowed to return to their homes, if they have not been demolished or re-assigned to needy immigrant families. They should wear a GPS-enabled house arrest ankle bracelet and keep authorities advised of their whereabouts at all times.

“Of course, we would expect the President’s National Stability Police Force to continue to hold anyone who is a real security threat, but we expect that such detainees would be tried and convicted or released within a reasonable period.”

Saying they were trying to reach missing Congressional colleagues to get a consensus in support of the compromise, McConnell expects to be allowed to meet with the President’s chief of staff to present the proposal “within the next few weeks.”

It’s NOT the ECONOMY, STUPID! It’s the FREEDOM!

July 5, 2011

It's NOT THE ECONOMY!

Why does any public discussion of our stumbling, staggering, bleeding economy dissolve into accounting-speak — deficits, debt, bonds, seasonally-adjusted unemployment figures, tax deductions, accelerated depreciation, corporate tax loopholes, taxing the rich, oil-depletion allowances, big oil, big tobacco, jobs training, college tuition, blah, blah, blah, ZZZZZ?

BECAUSE IT’S SUPPOSED TO. Whether it’s the baffled and hackneyed vice president or the Decepticon-in-Chief telling us we need to blame some fictional Monopoly-man villain, or the super-caffeinated Congressman Paul Ryan speed-talking to us about the his budget plan, we are soon lulled into a haze of indifference by the “hate-the-rich” blather, or the “dismal science” jargon.

This is by design. The Left blames the “rich,” and the Right blames the Left. Neither side in the argument will dare a passing glance at the real issue behind all the class-warfare rhetoric and financial minutiae – the metastatic intrusion of government into every aspect of our lives, consuming our freedoms and transforming our country from a beacon of freedom into an addled, paralyzed, stupid, Euro-socialist dinosaur.

In short, the real issue is the loss of freedom.

When a whole country tries to move back into its parents’ basement, somebody has to pick up the tab, and here we are. A nanny-state is an ever-expanding expense, and the trade of freedom for an illusion of security always, always, always has the same result. The number of people willing to make that trade exceeds the number of those who refuse, and, as Margaret Thatcher famously said, “…sooner or later, you run out of other peoples’ money.”

Then, one of a small number of things happens. One has happened so often that no one should be surprised, but some always are: mass murder and mass graves.

In the Twentieth Century,  socialism — under its two major brand names, Communism and Nazism — took off its mask of compassion and equality of result, and showed the naked face of absolute dictatorship. It tried to reduce its operating costs and remove inconvenient political opposition by killing a hundred million or more human beings.

It never works, but don’t look for this cost-cutting measure to be abandoned permanently. Scrape the socially-acceptable, compassionate-statist veneer off of any socialist, and the dictatorial, mass murderer is always there, waiting for its moment in the sun.

Another approach is by simply printing “money.”  This doesn’t work either, as the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe have already proven, as if proof were necessary. Sooner or later, the rest of the world catches on that the “full faith and credit” of the officially-sanctioned counterfeiting ring is meaningless.

No matter how many zeroes the print shop adds to the bill denominations, they still buy less and less, and finally, they are worth more as paper than as currency. This is but another, intermediate step to the murderous dictatorship, or to chaos and destruction.

The rarest but most blessed outcome is an awakening of the people to the reality that they are better off trusting themselves and leaving themselves to their own devices and to the mercy of their friends and relatives, than to trust any government to provide for them.

Of course, this sort of awakening is also likely to be bloody, because the beneficiaries of “other peoples’ money,” and the people who maintain their positions of privilege and power by handing it out, do not often give up their free rides voluntarily.

Some of the calcified and impoverished European socialist states are now experiencing a tentative rebirth of freedom; they have hit the financial wall, and can no longer ignore the inevitable. The trade of freedom for security always ends the same — security and freedom both expire. Whether these states, currently teetering on the razor-edge between freedom and slavery, will fall toward freedom, or away from it, it is still too early to tell.

Which way our own, uniquely-blessed country will fall, will be largely determined in the next few months.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the issue, not the economy. Will we choose freedom, as our forefathers did over 235 years ago, or slavery? The economy is an effect, not a cause. The economy will heal if we choose freedom.

If we choose slavery, we will get the economy we deserve.

WHERE ARE THE LEADERS?

June 3, 2011

Where are the leaders?

Where are the leaders – the people who can and will lead the United States of America out of the open grave we have been thrown into by the “leaders” of the last fifty years?

Where are the passionate, honest and humble men and women who know that government running every aspect of our lives is a recipe for misery and slavery?

Where are the men and women who will place themselves under the media spotlight without a crippling need for acceptance, because they understand that the media do not share, and will never share, their values?

Where are the men and women who will laugh in the faces of liberal hacks and counterfeit intellectuals with their cries of “racist” and other cheap, cowardly epithets, and call them out as the frauds and liars they are?

What follows is the speech I want to hear from a candidate who believes himself to be one of the real leaders – one who will help us to climb out of that open grave, rather than throwing in smaller shovelfuls of dirt, and telling us everything will be fine, if we just relax and embrace the darkness.

My fellow citizens:

I want to save this country. I can save this country. I need to save this country.

We are sinking into serfdom. Our government has broken the bonds the Founders wisely put on in our Constitution, and it is becoming our master, rather than our servant.

In the unending effort to buy permanent power, our government has plunged us into debt and inserted itself into every aspect of our lives.

While it pursues permanent power, our government neglects its most urgent and legitimate responsibilities. It fails at protecting the weak against the strong, and at protecting our nation against foreign and domestic enemies. It fails at protecting our rights and property against unlawful seizure and against unlawful restrictions on what we may do in and with our own property.

In fact, government has aggressively pursued the destruction of our right to own property, and to do with that property what we wish, thus rendering the right to own property nearly meaningless.

I must tell you, my fellow Americans, that once government has rendered meaningless the right to own property, we all become the property of government. The most important difference between a slave and a free person is the right to own property and to do with it, while protecting the rights of one’s neighbors, as one wishes.

I will reverse this endless expansion of government power.

I will nominate judges to the federal bench and to the supreme court, who will treat their oaths to uphold the Constitution literally. I will ask Congress to impeach judges who violate this oath.

I will pare down drastically the bloated regulatory bureaucracy that is choking off our freedom and our ability to prosper.

On my first day in office, I will fire “czars” that are unaccountable to the people and who are openly hostile to freedom, and who have no basis for authority in the Constitution.

I will ask Congress to abolish entire executive branch agencies and departments that have no basis in the Constitution, and no goal but their own self-perpetuation and expansion of influence.

The unborn, the sick and the elderly – the weakest and most innocent among us — are fortunate, these days, if we allow them to live. The fortunate survivors are those who were not killed because they were inconvenient, embarrassing, expensive, or evidence of a crime.

Our government has, instead, made these innocents legitimate prey for the predators who will make themselves rich and advance their lethal, utopian ideals by killing them.

I will sign legislation that makes abortion and euthanasia illegal under federal law, and I will speak unflinchingly to the States, from the bully pulpit that is the presidency, urging them to do the same. I will ask Congress to send me a bill that removes taxpayer dollars from any program, foreign or domestic, that funds abortion or euthanasia. I will sign that bill into law immediately, before American taxpayers can be forced to pay for one more innocent’s death.

A citizen’s life is a citizen’s property, and the right to own that property is basic, without which no other right matters. The right to life subsumes the right to choose one’s own medical care, and to pay for it as one wishes. The current level of government interference in this right is intolerable, and illegal.

I will revoke any executive orders intended to advance Obamacare, and I will consider the federal court ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional as binding. I will immediately revoke the authority of any executive branch agency, board or other bureaucratic structure put in place by preceding administrations to support or enforce this law.

I will instruct Congress to send me legislation repealing Obamacare completely, and I will then ask Congress to begin structuring legislation that will unleash the private sector to revolutionize health care while dramatically reducing costs and increasing the range of options available to consumers.

I would expect this legislation to include a gradual transition over several years from government-funded — and government-restricted – health care for the aged and for those who are incapable for providing for themselves. Medicare must be replaced incrementally with private medical care that patients who are capable of it can pay for themselves, as medical care was dispensed for hundreds of years before this bloated, self-destructive program came into existence. The indigent and disabled must be protected, and they will be. Those who can pay all or a share of their health care costs, though, should do so.

Contrary to the lies you are being told by the Left, this does not mean my administration would throw the sick, the elderly or the indigent out in the street to die uncared for. That is a lie, and the liars know it. What the liars are not telling you, is that Medicare and Social Security are both utopian schemes that bought a lot of votes in their day, but their day is over. We simply can’t pay for them any longer.

Let me say that again: Medicare and Social Security are both about to run out of money. If we shut our eyes to this stubborn fact, Medicare and Social Security will still be out of money very soon, and our nation’s sorry financial state will soon prevent us from borrowing any more from Communist China to keep them afloat.

Tell me, my fellow Americans, what will happen to the sick when our government-driven health care system no longer has money to care for them? Rationing. It is happening now, in every country that foolishly believed it could nationalize its health care and not face the same, inevitable consequences.

Care is being withheld, and patients are being allowed to die from neglect and by the withdrawal of basic life support. They are starving and dying of thirst in their unchanged, soiled beds. If their families do not bring them food and change their linens, they lie in their own wastes and die, slowly and in great discomfort. This is the fate of those the Left is supposedly defending against their allegedly greedy, heartless critics.

Those who are so often vocal in their expressions of compassion and concern for the sick, are the liars who cannot face the consequences of their own lies. The helpless victims, however, face those consequences daily. This is what happens when government takes away the property right of citizens to care for their own lives. They become slaves.

What government gives, government can take away – including life, itself.

This nation has a history of decades of government encroachment into our lives, decades of spending money we do not have, decades of gradually surrendering our sovereignty to creditors and to those who think we should not have borders, decades of growing generations of government dependents, decades of failing to educate our citizens in basic skills, history and analytical thinking.

We cannot reverse this disastrous course overnight. But, we must begin immediately, shouldering the burden and working against the pain that will result, because if we do not change course, we will die as a nation, just as surely as the sick will die under national health care.

We must change course. And we will.

I want to save this country. I can save this country. I need to save this country.

But, I cannot do it alone. I must have your help and support. Now, and after the election, I must have your support and your trust. With your help, and with the Lord’s guidance, we will save this country. We must save this country. We owe it to ourselves and to our posterity.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your attention. Now, let’s get to work.

May God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Hamas-linked CAIR to Muslims: Pat yourselves down in airport security checks

November 25, 2010

Burqa_afghanistan_01.

Just let them pat themselves down. It'll be fine. (Courtesy Wikipedia)

Hamas-linked CAIR to Muslims: Pat yourselves down in airport security checks

CAIR wants muslim women in veils to offer to “pat themselves down” to satisfy the TSA at the airport.

If the TSA goes for this exception — and who will be surprised if they do — it will validate my suspicion that the “enhanced” security measures have less to do with security than with conditioning the traveling public to being treated like presumptive criminals, stripped of dignity, privacy and any sense of their bodies as their own property.

This will make them fit better into the brave new world Dear Leader has in mind for us.

Muslims, like socialists and communists, are already collectivists with a diminished sense of personal sovereignty, and thus, already are a better fit in the new order. Thus, they will get a pass, although it is temporary.

Eventually, Marx and Lenin have to step into the ring with Allah and Mohammed, and decide once and for all which religion will run the world… until then, muslims get a pass.

Weak Tea — The Pledge to America

September 24, 2010

I have just waded through the Pledge to America, as it appears at the Human Events Website (watermarked as a DRAFT)

It is 21 pages long in PDF format. I copied and pasted the text into my ancient version of Microsoft Word, and found the following when I clicked on “Properties”:

"Pledge" stats, according to MS Word

"Pledge" stats, according to MS Word

Twenty-six pages; 214 paragraphs; 7854 words… why does it have to be so big? If I may use a bit of a Tea Party metaphor, it reads like weak tea. I’m not happy to make this assessment, because a Congressman I respect immensely, Mike Pence, stood in front of a hardware store and spoke for the group in the introduction of the Pledge.

Brief disclosure: I know Mike Pence from his talk show days, when I was a frequent caller, and even got an autographed caricature of Mike, endorsed with the description, “Favorite caller to the Mike Pence Show.” Once, I even made a nervous, inept, in-studio guest appearance on his show, concerning the loss of a loved one to a drunk driver. He bought my lunch afterward, and we had a good conversation.

I have disagreed with Mike on specific issues since he first went to Congress, but I still believe he is, as he described himself described himself on his radio show, a “Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.” He is a consummate gentleman, besides all that, and I will bet his colleagues, supporters and opponents, have found him to be so. End of Disclosure

Now, it’s time to get to the point. Why did it take so many pages to say what needs to be said? One paragraph from the introduction to the document said 99% of what needed to be said on the subject:

“We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all 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.”

Wow, what an eloquent, unqualified, statement – solid and substantial as granite; as sufficient and self-sustaining as anything to come out of the mouths of Republicans in decades.

Any details that followed that statement of principle could have been specific goals for its implementation. I suggest the following:

We resolve to stop and reverse, with every means available to us, the measures of the federal government that violate this principle. We will speak and vote at every opportunity, to repeal laws that violate the Constitution, and we will vote and speak against any and all new legislation that violates the Constitution.

In addition to abolition and repeal, we will also speak for and vote to remove current funding and to oppose new funding for the acts and agencies of the federal government that violate the Constitution.

Because federal judicial fiat has been used so often to thwart or ignore the Constitution, we will offer and aggressively pursue articles of impeachment against any federal judge who advances such anti-Constitutional measures or decisions.

We offer these promises in the full knowledge that embedded special interests and the vast inertia of the expanding juggernaut of federal authority will oppose us at every turn.

We understand that we may fall out of favor with the media, the powerful, bureaucratic establishment and the entrenched, political leadership on all sides in Washington and in the states.

We have no fear of their disapproval, because they are wrong, and they have done their part to make the federal government so large and grasping over the last decades.

We trust in our Creator to stand with us to defend the inalienable rights He granted our ancestors and our posterity.

We trust in the citizens of the United States of America to support us as long as we abide by the Constitution, and to send us home if we break these pledges.

Ten sentences.

Nine paragraphs.

That’s all I really need to see in a statement of purpose.

The arithmetic, the legislative agenda, the economic and employment statistics, the alphabet soup of federal agencies… all of that is important, but it is subordinate to the principles. It does not belong in this document.

Mike – ahem, Congressman Pence – please appeal to your colleagues to distill and reduce the pledge to these essentials, and to make it clear that the details that follow will adhere to these principles.

If the Republicans are to have a future in this country; if, indeed, the legislative branch is not to become an irrelevant, impotent venue for meaningless Kabuki theater, like the Supreme Soviet of old, while the courts, the White House and the bureaucrats complete the destruction of this Constitutional Republic, this pledge and your adherence to it, is our only hope short of armed revolution.