The Paleo Party

The thing the Democrat Party wants the most is to convince us that it is in our best interest, regardless of the interest, to let the government manage as much of our community and our lives as possible.  Cost is, of course, no object (because it is not their money).  But this is the oldest idea of government known to man and the dominate feature of centuries of thugocracies where most of the people living in them lived in fear and poverty while a small select few lived safe and well.

This is not progress.  This is not forward. But it explains the modern Democrat disdain for the US Constitution, for that document was built for the sole purpose of creating a government that was not like any other in human history.  It suggested that while we do have some common interests, that we are far better at caring for and defending ourselves and each other, locally, than any centralized monarch, oligarchy, or puppet parliament.  And they were correct.

As the Federal government continues its decades long pursuit of exactly that which the founders tried to prevent, the general populace finds itself less and less in control of its own future with our children’s future looking more bleak.  The government, through debt, spending, and regulation, is forming a center of power not much different from the monarchies of old.  The state must feed itself.  The taxman will come and take what it needs or wants (Hello Cyprus?).   Riots and domestic terrorism by the vast base of dependent public employees will use mob rule to continue to get what they feel entitled to through threats of violence (Hello Greece?).  And at the end of the day, the state will have to move in, fully armed (Hello Urban assault vehicles, massive government gun and ammo purchases), and calm things down.

Oh, look?  See how the government cares.  They’ve suppressed another violent rebellion.

One of their own creation.

That is how tyrants stay in power.  That is how socialism works.  What the modern Democrat party wants is not new.  It is not progress.  It is the near constant state of struggle and misery (in forms similar or tangential) that has plagued our world since man first walked it.  The Constitutional Republic is what is new, what is different, what is innovative and unique.  And it has created more prosperity in just a few hundred years than the rest of history combined.  It has heralded more innovation, better standards of living, and a happier, healthier people than at any point on the arc of human history.

The US Constitution is the new political technology.  It protects Freedom.  And Freedom is sexy.

So why are modern Democrats in their Paleo party so afraid of it?  Because they can’t control it.  It doesn’t answer to them.  And it most certainly does not listen to them.  And this disturbs our modern-day monarchs.  So they tell you stories.  Make up lies.  Bend the truth.  They offer you tribute in exchange for loyalty and intimidate or punish the disloyal.

That is not freedom.  That is tyranny.  And that is the goal (intentionally or not) of the modern Democrat party.  The state of misery that has dominated human history.  There is nothing new or sexy about that.

You are reading  The Paleo Party   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

I,________, do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the 'Guidelines?'

Has ignorance reared its ugly head again in the New Hampshire Legislature   Yeah, yeah, more times per day than we could count with all those people there.  Actually, I'm referring to Debra DeSimone, Rockingham 14 who seems to have a questionable view of her relationship to the constitution.  According to Ms. De Simone, the constitution is really just a guideline and we have House Rep George Lambert (Hills - 44) to thank for sharing that news with us.

From Facebook.

"House quote of the day "the constitution is a guideline" not a requirement. - and yes she said "I swore to uphold the guideline" if it is just a guideline, how will it's protections actually defend you..."

And an inch is just a guideline when building a house.  So what if you are off a few inches or bits of inches here and there.  A foot here, a yard there.  (as long as it doesn't fall down while you're standing next to it, right?)

So it's Guidelines is it, Debra?  Well I checked the oath of office.  The word "Guidelines" isn't in there.

Is there something we need to know?  Are there other things you've changed the words to in your head, fingers crossed, while reciting them?  And could this Debra-DeSimone-constitutional-conundrum suggest the bluing of her once "more-Republican" political worldview?

Debra didn't start out as a RINO but with talk like that it may be too late.  She may have contracted a terminal case of Concord Fever.

You get Concord Fever from being immersed in the bureaucracy for too long.  The endless chatter, the lobbyists, the swarms of state employees, and the leftist stench that seeps from the fat folds of a corpulent government-dependent capital-city constantly crying for another giant  bag of tax-payer flavored Doritos.

It is New Hampshire's version of the Georgetown flu.   Some catch it quick, some never, some arrive with it by the bus-load like moths to flame, or groupies at a convention for typhoid Mary's,  intent on infecting everyone they can.

And because Human nature encourages us to seek the path of least resistance, to give in to peer pressure, to fit in, Concord Fever, or Georgetown Flu, has no shortage of new hosts among the brethren of the first church of government before the people.

And what of Debra?

Debra has been in the House since the 2008 election, serving 2009-2010, 2011-2012, and now again for 2013-2014.  Looking back, as a snappy freshman, her NHHRA score for 2009-2010--a sign of how well she votes with regard to her party platform-was a solid 90%.  That breaks down to a barely passable 83% in 2009 and an impressive 95% in 2010.  Surrounded as she was by a Democrat majority seems to have served her instincts well.

Moving on to the 2011-2012 session something changed.  She dropped all the way down to a 77%.  Her session score from the RLCNH was a 70%.  The only decent trend I could find was from the NHLA which gave her a grade of B every year she has served since 2009.  But in 2012...she dropped to a B-.

That means, more likely than not, that she migrated to the left on some social issues and has grown more comfortable surrounded by the clucking hens in the "something must be done crowd."

And now we've got this whole "guideline" thing?  (Are you already denying you said it?)

Debra isn't the only Republican with this potential problem.  There are a lot of people who look at the law and then act as if it were just a guideline.  Many of those people get arrested.  Some of them go to jail.  Do you know why?  Because the law is the law.  It is not a suggestion. It is not always right, or careful, or relevant, but there is a process for fixing that.

And the Constitution is the law of the law.  We didn't have a break-out session and come up with some action items.  The Constitution limits government power so that as it performs its basic duty to ensure that civil society stays civil it does not evolve into a despotic police state run by people who govern based on transient principles.

It defines what law can and cannot do how it is to be made and unmade, to ensure that peoples natural rights and freedoms are not trampled by busy-body legislators and peace officers infected with the uncontrollable desire to appear to be doing something, even when that something could threaten other peoples liberty and property.

Law is serious business; more serious because the people most affected are those most inclined to follow it, even when they would like to suggest changes.

People of principle and character play by the rules and follow the law even when they wish to change it, while those less inclined to do so drift into a toxic gray area where feelings and emotions become the guidelines that define the edges of a now inconvenient social and cultural morality.

You do understand that Hitler got to power following the guidelines which he later disposed of when even those stood between him and his destiny as a dictator?  And he's not alone.  Republics reduced to raw democracies inevitably become despotic because of human nature and its relationship to power.  All you have to do is follow the guidelines and ignore anything inconvenient until the only inconvenient thing left is the people who are upset about losing their freedom--but that is what the secret police are for, right?  Evolution isn't just about explaining how you and a sperm whale could have descended from the same goo even if the math doesn't work.  It works for the destruction of freedom just as well.

How does the saying go, the biggest storm announces itself with a simple breeze?  Guidelines?  Did someone leave a door open?

Please do not presume to think I am accusing anyone of anything other than being caught saying something silly of succumbing to wrong-headed thinking.  I am merely using the occasion of this seeming indifference to the risk the notion of 'guidelines' presents to explore the larger problem.

For the record, it is a wholly progressive socialist notion, and it is there erstwhile wish that the document be neutered so that they may do whatever strikes their fancy without fear of interference from the people whom they swore--to the Constitution -to protect from government tyranny.

But seeing as these same people appear insistent at playing the role of "lawmaker," sworn to protect and defend that constitution, might I be so bold as to suggest that it is in our best interest to accept that the Constitution is not a guideline no matter how many well-meaning, progressive harpies, chat you up differently in the ladies room.  A constitution is the Granite upon which the waves of whimsy crash.

In case anyone has forgotten...a legislators first obligation is to those documents.

I, A.B. do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.

The word support in the oath does not mean to carry it around and ignore everything it is means.  And in case you are curious, 'bear faith' has nothing to do with bears.  And claiming you swore to the guidelines is not "faith and true allegiance to..."  It's a cop-out and your constituents deserve better.

And if, for example, one of your own well-meaning constituents, the ones who email you weekly and call and stop you in the store,  ask you to propose or vote for something that clearly fails a constitutional test, your role is that of an educator, an instructor or interpreter of civics; not a drug mule who carries every bat-sh*t notion to the state house as a litmus test to see how far we can stretch those 'guidelines.'

When other representatives bring forward legislation your role is to serve as a constitutional filter for your constituents -who were supposed to have chosen you because they felt you qualified to protect their interests in the capital.  So when the clown car filled with LSR's unloads Bill after Bill, you will be there for them, to make sure it does not violate, first and foremost, the highest law in the land.  That would be the New Hampshire State Constitution and the US Constitution.

If a Bill passes that basic test, and there is a lot of room in there, then the rest is left to your understanding of your district, your judgement, based on your principles, assuming you  have some.  And I don't mean just you, I refer to every elected official, judge, appointee, paper pusher or public employee, whose actions can or will affect the liberty or property of the people who pay their way; far too many of whom--I might add-- see far too much of the constitution, the law itself, as little more than just a guideline.

That kind of thinking is lazy and we can get it, even indexed for inflation, at a dime a dozen.  But people of principle who know the law and understand why it can and often should be so hard to change are rare.  People who do not think of the government first every time the emotional wind blows their way are just as rare.

That is why we need a constitution and we need to defend it.  To protect us from the kind of knee-jerk, crisis legislating that leads to losses of freedom, intentional or not.

No one swears to uphold something as ephemeral as a guideline.  You might just as well have not sworn to do anything at all.  Oh, wait.  It appears that you did just that.

You are reading  "I,________, do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the ‘Guidelines?’"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

A Real Separation Of Powers

Separation of powers is something of a throw-away phrase for the Socialist-Democrat-Progressives.  They hand it out like a comfort object to the public, a sort of well-worn teddy bear for the masses.  It is meant to remind you that no matter what they do (or did) that bear will be there to help you feel better.

So what if it is a highly regulated bear, made by dues paying  union workers, stuffed with warning labels, wearing a little red hat with a hammer and sickle on it, and maybe even an Obama T-shirt for good measure.

Separation of powers is also this idea where the three branches are divided to ensure that the tyrannical might of the federal government is divided to protect the rights of the people.  This used to work, right up until someone wrote the seventeenth amendment, and then politicized the national court system.  At that point we no longer had separation of powers just the separation of parties, except where the two parties agree; in which case we are looking at an Oligarchy by direct democracy, which is one of the shortest paths by which little Red Totalitarian-Riding hood arrives at Comrade Grandma's house.

Why do you think both parties appear to be moving to opposite extreme's?  Why are states rebelling against the federal government?  Because the system was broken on purpose, by progressives, who need direct democracy so that fear and intimidation can drive the polity to allow top down federal rule as the only viable solution.

So our central planning friends view separation of powers to mean separating you from their power, so they can go about the business of managing your lives, and no one has worked harder or longer to excise the power from the people than democrats, though the ruling class Neo-Cons have done plenty to help fill the picnic basket for grandma.

But there is a solution to this problem, one that can relieve the pressure of special interests, the boys club mentality, and the lack of responsiveness by the federal legislature to the state and the people.

The answer is to repeal the seventeenth amendment.

Amendment seventeen punched a hole in the hull just below the waterline by changing an aspect of the separation of powers that is never discussed in classrooms and almost a mystery to most Americans.  It divides, not just the power of government, but the power of election.

The US House is the peoples House.  It is called that because it is the only directly elected body (or was meant to be the only directly elected body) by the people.  Terms are short, easy to replace.  Those who refuse to listen will cause limited damage when all the other parts are working properly.

The President is elected by the electoral college, the states elected delegates who as each sovereign states granters of authority for this purpose, choose the person who shall serve to execute those laws of a federal nature that they all agree are needed to maintain the union.

And Senators (were) appointed by state legislatures and could be recalled at any time when their actions became a danger to the state whom they were chosen to represent.

This system removed the pay to play partisan/ideological politics we see today.  It divided not just the powers among the branches of government, it divided the power to elevate people into those positions.  It placed the power to elect those electors and representatives at the state level, with the lowest common denominator--Americans.  So even when the people were not operating in a direct democracy at the federal level, they held the power--divided amongst themselves and their towns and counties--to choose who these electors and legislators were, knowing the power they had to appoint federal officials for them.

If you had failed to notice, it no longer works that way, and federal officials--for the most part--do whatever they want, and rely on money, power, and influence to overcome the public's objections to their use or misuse of power.

Repealing the seventeenth amendment would change that.

By putting the Senate back under the control of the states own elected legislatures, the power play politics in the upper chamber in Washington DC would have to end.  Anyone wanting to be a Senator would have to pay close attention to the will of their elected state legislature or risk being recalled and replaced. (It would also make the position available to people of great ability and wisdom and more meager means,)

Democrats hate this idea.  They claim it will result in deal-making and state level corruption.  (You mean like Blago and the selling of Obama's seat?  That was one bad man with too much power, not an entire legislature voting for a guy whose choice could get them tossed out of office in a year or two.)   So is corruption a problem?  All men are weak, but only democrats refuse to admit that--as they seek a man-made utopia that can never exist. The idea is to put barriers to corruption in place by dividing power not centralizing it, bureaucratizing it, and then institutionalizing it.

Appointed Senators who misbehave is a problem that the states and the people can resolve at the local ballot box by replacing the legislator who lives down the street, instead of waiting six years to try and replace a corrupt sitting senator with someone who has to raise millions just to try.

But the real reason the left hates the idea is that direct democracy is the shortest path to central rule--mob rule by the fragile majority of 50-plus one percent of voters convinced of an idea as vapid as hope and change, without any need to describe either.  Been there, done that.

And appointed Senators would have no reason to side with a corrupt president either.

This is why we need to defend the electoral college from the idiots vying for a direct vote of the president, and it is why we must strive to repeal the seventeenth amendment.  Direct democracy of our federal government is a death knell to local control, state sovereignty, and freedom as we know it.  The Separation of powers is not just about the three branches of our corrupt tree of government, it is about how they are grown, and pruned, to protect American exceptionalism, to protect liberty as we once knew it.

[Updated: While I have been trying to glue my disparate thoughts on this topic together for a while, all the credit belongs to Todd Zywicki-George Mason University Law Professor--whose recent article in National Review (Nov 15 2010) brought it home for me]

Cross posted

New Hampshire Exceptionalism

As the progressives in the Granite State consider their losses it is worth noting (at least one more time) that even in the context of a "Wave election" New Hampshire is exceptional.

Despite overwhelming  discontent with congress and the liberal agenda a majority of New England chose to put the spoiled milk back in the fridge, content with the flavor and prepared to let it sit a bit longer to see how it "improves."

But not New Hampshire.  New Hampshire was the exception.

In a corner of America where co-dependence with government is the prescription of choice, the Granite state rejected it on an epic scale.

The voters on this Granite island took a democrat majority government and turned it into a Republican super-majority, making the historical re-election of democrat John Lynch historical for it's inability to stop anything the legislative super majority can agree is in the best interest of the people who elected them.

And what might those interests be?

How about a realigning of the relationship between the governing and the governed, where the state is actually constrained by it's own constitution?  How about measures designed to restore the state's relationship to the general government which gets it's powers from the states, not the other way around? How about restoring local control to it's rightful place with the towns and the people?

It is the restoration of these simple concepts, not just repealing a view tax or cutting a budget (not that we do not have a huge laundry list of such things to repeal or replace), that will protect the people of New Hampshire for generations. 

We must use this opportunity to defend the state for ourselves and our posterity, not just from the recent destructive course of government and the capricious urges of Obama's crumbling national majority, but from future manipulations driven by political vanity or the ambition that foments it.

There is an historic opportunity to define how law will be made in the New Hampshire.  One that if properly executed will help that little red island in the sea of blue New England to become an even greater beacon of opportunity and growth for decades to come.

New Hampshire won't just have an advantage.  It will be truly exceptional.

Cross Posted

Article 11 v. Elliot Lasky - Smackdown!

I do not profess to know the finer details of New Hampshire election law, though more perhaps than the husband of the former State Senator who sat on the election law committee, Elliot Lasky.  Mr. Bette Lasky was caught stealing political signs, a clear violation of election law.  (I guess Bette didn't bring that work home with her.)

The Nashua Police have elected not to charge Mr. Bette Lasky with the crime he committed despite the overwhelming evidence against him.  Is it because he is the husband of their former State Senator?  Or is it because article 11 of the New Hampshire Constitution, properly enforced, would prohibit Elliot from voting in New Hampshire if convicted of the crime.

The relevant part of article 11 states

[...] No person shall have the right to vote under the constitution of this state who has been convicted of treason, bribery or any willful violation of the election laws of this state or of the United States; but the supreme court, on notice of the attorney general, restore the privilege to vote to any person who may have forfeited it by conviction of such offenses. [emphasis mine]

How problematic would that be? Mr Bette Lasky loses his right to vote and has to beg the AG of a democrat governor to go to the State supreme court to get the privilege restored.  Lots of press.  Not pretty business that.

Someone could still file a complaint.

Or is it a moot point.  His wife lost, and we can by all rights lay blame at the feet of the sign stealer.  Some will see that as satisfaction enough, justice served, ironic even, don't you think? 

But by my thinking nothing stops a persistent problem like sign stealing more than the acute application of constitutional law.  If people or democrats actually started losing the right to vote, the casual abuse might promptly go out of style--at least with the more prominent looters in the community.  Sign stealers would henceforth be like bands of suicide bombers directed by cell leaders who never actually stole signs themselves.  Disposable acolytes (college students) sent on self destructive missions that if compromised would result in their prohibition from voting in-state. (And then maybe they'd just vote in their own for a change?)

Something to think about.

Of course if we enforced that law, the next thing you know we'd be prosecuting voter fraud and where would that lead us?  My guess is another 50 years of Republican majorities in our state legislature though that might be a moot point as well.  Ray Buckley and a few years of progressive democrat overreach seem to have done that for us already.

No reason not to enforce the law though, if you take my meaning.

Cross Posted