The Problem with Rick Santorum

Based on a letter I sent to his campaign... a letter that I know will probably never get anywhere:


I believe in most of what Rick stands for.  But there is a critical problem:


http://www.ricksantorum.com/appointing-constitutionalist-justices-and-judges-who-refuse-legislate-bench


...says, 

Rick is committed to nominating to federal judgeships only very qualified and ethical individuals who, at a minimum, possess a clear record in support of the following key constitutional principles:

1. That the Constitution provides federal judges with authority to decide cases but that all legislative power is reserved exclusively for the legislative branch and, accordingly, judges have no authority to legislate from the bench and must never do so.
2. That the Constitution provides that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws are the supreme law of the land, and that federal judicial power extends to cases arising under the United States constitution and federal laws and, accordingly, judges should not in any way rely upon any form of foreign law or international law for the purpose of interpreting the United States Constitution and laws.

(emphasis added)


But this is wrong, or at least not explicit enough to prevent the kind of misinterpretation that has brought us to our current state.  


The constitution clearly states that:
1. The Supreme Court only has authority on issues of constitutional or federal law, which in turn require explicit constitutional authority in order to be valid (according to the 10th amendment and/or articles III and VI); and
2. The Constitution (and Federal law) is only "supreme" on constitutional matters.  The law of each state is actually supreme in that state, taking precedence *over* the Federal Constitution, on matters that are not explicitly reserved to the federal government (as stated in the 10th ammendment); this is again according to the 10th amendment and/or article VI.


In other words, on matters of Education, Energy, Health, Drug Enforcement, Transporation Safety, Environmental Protection and Wildlife Lands, Criminal Justice, or any other area of responsibility that is not explicitly granted in the constitution to the national government... the law of the state of Texas (or any other state) is actually the supreme law of the land, for that state and the U.S. citizens in it.


While the quoted section from Santorum actually does say "federal judicial power extends to cases arising under the United States constitution", to me it does not go far enough, and is not explicit enough in excluding state and local issues from the mix.


I think that Rick sort of gets it, but if he really got it, he would be much more careful, as the founders were, to specify that federal judicial power extends only to matters of constitutional law, just as power of the federal congress and the federal executive branch lawfully extend only to matters that are explicitly defined as enumerated powers in the constitution.


See these passages of the Constitution:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..." (Article III) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution)

Again, the federal judicial power extends to cases "arising from the constitution"; and "the laws of the United States" are supposed to be only those laws authorized by the constitution -- any federal law that surrounds a power not authorized by the constitution, is UNconstitutional and thus void.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" (Article VI) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution)

Ditto here, speaking about the power and scope of the U.S. Constitution, and the national government that it establishes and limits.


Rick, please study it and revise your position. You'd actually get support from more strict libertarians, probably even erode a fair bit of the non-extreme Ron Paul support; and I don't think that such a traditional constitutional position would scare off more moderate conservatives.


Oh, and the other problem with Rick Santorum? He's just too nice looking. 

The Value of a Degree from Western Governors University

I am close to completing my Bachelor of Science degree in IT, with an emphasis in security.  I am grateful for this opportunity, in part to complete something I started nearly twenty years ago.  Due to the type of degree program, prior work experience, support from my wife, and lots of help from above, I have been able to work through the degree program relatively quickly.


I am also learning a great deal.


However, as a student and a potential employer, I see some problems in the degree program and philosophy of the school.


Many of the classes come down to a single objective assessment, or (generally) industry standard certification exam.  These occur as a single test, are multiple choice and are pass/fail, etc.  This means your students are more likely to be able to cram the knowledge (through the test-prep software you provide) in just enough to pass the test.  This also means that in the end your students will likely graduate with 1) less long-term knowledge and 2) less deep, practical understanding of the subject matter, thus decreasing the value of a WGU education.  Furthermore, there is a real difference in the quality of the education in the student between a 71% student versus a 95% student; pass/fail does not show the difference.  C students are elevated beyond their earning; A students are held down beyond a level of excellence that they have achieved.  It's the "participant trophy syndrome", where everyone gets equal results for unequal effort, skills and performance (how very socialistic).


Selfishly, I like this, because I can leverage my career knowledge and test-taking aptitude to get my degree quickly.  But, objectively, I know that this is not the best thing for the students, and thus, not for the university.  Do we really want people graduating solely by "cram-master" test-prep?  That seems to be the modern equivalent of a school-endorsed "Cliff's Notes"-based degree program.


Each tech course that includes an objective assessment should have at least one performance assessment (a task, lab, or report), preferably two or three.  The performance assessments would be best spent on tasks such as "install, configure, and document a Windows Active Directory domain service that meets requirements X, Y, and Z", or "install, configure and document a simulated network environment that meets requirements X, Y, and Z", or "install, configure and document a Microsoft deployment solution that accomplishes these objectives, and show successful deployment."  These practical tasks, over a somewhat longer period of time, will ensure better understanding of the material (beyond that necessary to achieve a PASS on a single multiple choice exam).


Note that I am not arguing that the performance assessment should necessarily be of immense complexity and duration; only that it ought to be there, should be required, and should figure into the grade.  When the student has a sufficient *practical* grasp on the material, the task will take less than 8 hours.


The students will be stronger, the subject matter will be more tangible to the students (rather than only book-learned), and the value of the degree will increase in industry.

The Free Domain, Stefan Molyneux, or "That ye be not deceived"

There deserves to be written much more on the subject, but I have a job and an employer that expects me to get stuff done.  So, here's what I have:

There is something very appealing, but insidious, about Stefan Molyneux's message.  Stefan is a leader of the free market anarchist movement (at least that is what I will call it).

I have listened to perhaps 5-10 hours of his messages (that ought to be enough to form an informed opinion), and I think that anybody who listens to him must understand clearly: He is an anarchist, a Godless ally for the forces of Chaos, chasing an ideal as pernicious, subversively attractive, and impossible as the Communists themselves. (Perhaps this is why the anarchists and communists are allied now with the globalists, nazis and radical islamists -- all united to destroy the last bastion of freedom.)  Only, if you remove the association that was  established by the people to preserve the liberties of the people, then what will replace it?  Violence, crime, enslavement and force love a vacuum.

1. If people without government create prosperity,
2. If the people had abolished their government in favor of anarchy because the government (by the people) was too corrupt to protect the interests of the people and used force to enslave the people,
3. Then, when there is prosperity, and *all of * the people in the world have not ceased to do wickedly and exercise force,
4. Who will now protect the prosperity and liberty.  The people themselves?  Well, true. But they must organize themselves to stand against standing armies and organized thieves.  And what do we call such an organization, but a governance by the people -- an establishment of government for the common good, which would necessarily be a representative form, must have some continuity and consistency, and rules for its own existence.

I do not believe that God desires anarchy for his children.

True, our national government is rotten.  But to destroy it is dangerous folly.  Reform it.  True, we have an uphill battle to reform it.  First, we must reform our people.

'Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.' - John Adams

If the problem is that our elected officials are corrupt, then the fundamental problem is that we the people are corrupt.  If the people are corrupt, then no form of government (or absence of it) will cure the corruption.

We the people MUST REPENT of our PERSONAL moral failures.  We the people must THEN become engaged in our communities and with the political process.

In short: I have found, and I want my friends and family to know, that if you seek truth and light, Stefan has only philosophies of men to offer. There are better sources to make the arguments that need to be made.

Grit Lit

http://mundiemoms.blogspot.com/2011/06/dear-wall-street-journal.html

This blog has an article about what kind of literature is appropriate and good for the YA world.

"They deserve to have books that reflect their reality. The good, the bad, the clean, the ugly and everything in between."

I think that statement has some truth, but also misses the mark in that Literature, movies, etc., should not only portray "their/our reality", but should also set a standard and teach principles and ideals toward which we all should strive.

If someone lives in the projects or a real life soap opera, will that person be better served by reading trash and smut, just because that's what surrounds them? or will that person be better served by reading and learning about what else is out there, what is better, and how to get to that better place?

True, nobody may be well served by reading fluff literature of rainbows and lollipops, but nobody who lives and reads the gutter will be well served by so-doing, even if the "grit" 'feels real' to them.

I think some people get caught up in the "people need to keep it real", and sometimes forget about the other side of it: "people need to know how they can (and why they should) change their world, rather than be changed by their world."

Reply from Congressman Carter

I have received a reply (below) from Congressman John Carter (R-TX). It is a little more specific, but still has some incorrect information and some dangerous positions.

First, Mr. Carter states that "the United States has always paid its debts". This assertion is false on at least two accounts, as documented here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/has_the_us_government_ever_def.html

Second, Mr. Carter states that "...failing to raise the statutory debt limit would [be] catastrophic to the world economy and would immediately and irreversibly weaken the full faith and credit of the United States."

A) This sounds an awful lot like the "if we don't bail out Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, General Motors, etc., etc., then the end of the world will come"; they were wrong then, and they're wrong now. I no longer believe the "this crisis forces our hand to do something wrong" claims.

B) The previous defaults did not end the world nor destroy America.

C) Defaulting would certainly

D) Failing to increase the debt ceiling does not logically require a default on debt: first pay your debtors, then pay for your own social (and other) programs. You must service the debt. You are not required to fund the Dept. of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Dept. of Education, each of which has extra-constitutional (and therefore illegal) mandates.

E) It doesn't matter: it's not your money. It's the money of the taxpayers and of the investors who bought your bonds. You have to pay that back, even if you have to cut your favorite "I may not get re-elected if I don't keep giving the pork/handout/social program.

Sir, my respect for you has just taken a huge hit.

May 17, 2011

Mr. B

Dear B:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about increasing the debt limit. The debt crisis is a serious issue that Washington must address during the 112th Congress.

As you already know, there is debate in Washington about increasing the debt ceiling in the near future. The debt limit was instituted in 1917 when Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act. Since 2001 the debt limit has been raised by Congress 10 times, and was last raised on February 12th 2010. With recent news from the Treasury Department, the debt limit is now expected to be reached in August due to "stronger-than-expected tax receipts".

It goes without saying that there needs to be serious plans to reduce government spending when discussing the debt ceiling. Republicans must take a firm stance against those wishing to continue the irresponsible spending habits that brought us to this point. These habits have pushed us to the fiscal brink, and this unprecedented amount of spending must stop. Spending cuts must take priority in the debt limit discussion so that the American people can be assured this will not happen again.

So far in the 112th Congress, I am proud to have voted in favor of Congress' cut to its own budget by 5 percent, a move that will immediately save taxpayers $35 million. I voted in favor of the House-passed, H.Res. 22, legislation that reduces the amount authorized for salaries and expenses of Members, Committee and Leadership offices for 2011 and 2012. Also, The House of Representatives passed H.R. 359, which, if enacted, would reduce federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions. This legislation has been received by the Senate where it has been referred to Committee on Finance.

The United States has financial obligations, and it is unacceptable not to honor those commitments. Failing to win the necessary concessions on spending cuts would be detrimental to America's future. That said, failing to raise the statutory debt limit would catastrophic to the world economy and would immediately and irreversibly weaken the full faith and credit of the United States. Fortunately, the United States has always paid its debts and remains in good financial standing with other countries, and we must make sure this good standing continues. However we must use this opportunity to ensure drastic spending cuts.

Rest assured I am monitoring this issue and will keep your thoughts in mind as it is discussed in the coming weeks. I will continue to fight for an economic agenda which reflects my principles as a fiscal conservative, emphasizing the value of common sense expenditures, and reforming wasteful government spending. Please know that I am committed to balancing our budget, reforming government spending, and reducing the deficit. Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to do so in the future if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

John Carter

Member of Congress

For more information on what I am doing in Congress, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/carter. If you would like a weekly update, you may also sign up to receive my newsletter while you're there.

Letter to national reps on economic and fiscal policy

I sent this letter to my senators and my representative:

Dear Sir:

Are you kidding me? Is 14 Trillion in debt not enough? This is reminiscent of the problem exhibited by many American households: "I really want/'need' it, so I'll just buy it on credit."

Look where that has gotten us.

1.

I say, though the heavens may fall, though our credit rating may be hurt, though anything else, STOP THE BORROWING, STOP THE SPENDING FOR NON-CONSTITUTIONAL "good" CAUSES.

The only way to start the upward climb is to hit bottom, abandon the (spending) addiction, clean house and move forward with firm resolve to "never again let this happen." *Then*, our rating, our dollar, and our prosperity will be better than ever, because

Please do not raise the debt limit. Period.

2.

How is it that a private bank - The "U.S. Federal Reserve Bank", is continuing to print currency, devaluing my savings and my earnings, reducing our companies' ability to purchase overseas components and fuel... ostensibly under the guidance of the U.S. Treasury and therefore the U.S. Congress... Stop the printing of money, stop mortgaging our childrens' future. Stop devaluing the currency. Stop giving the Executive Branch more "money" to spend by fiat.

3.

Sir, I have heard that you are the "real deal". If so, then why are you not in the media? You should be on with Sean Rima, Laura Ingraham, perhaps Beck, GMA, every morning and radio show.

Our country is falling down (well, really being mugged and nearly left for dead), and we're not hearing from anybody who gets what's going on, speaking, evangelizing, in the mainstream.

4.

Who is John Galt?

Thank you,

Lane Bryson

To Kay Bailey Hutchison, I changed #3:

3.

Madame, I know that you are not the "real deal". You are part of the problem that has brought us to this precipice. You are probably guilty of accessory to commit treason, and should be tried as such, by your complicit disregard for the wellbeing of our country and our constitution (it doesn't matter that you think something is a "good cause" or "brings home the port" -- it is illegal when it violates the clear and plain language of the Consitution. I asked my other representatives why they are you not in the media -- why are they not on with Sean Rima, Laura Ingraham, perhaps Beck, GMA, every morning and radio show. In your case, my one consolation is that you have not been publicly evangelizing your big-government progressive positions.

Our country is falling down (well, really being mugged and nearly left for dead), and we're not hearing from anybody who gets what's going on, speaking, evangelizing, in the mainstream.

What a world, when genuine acts of treason by political elites are ignored by the law enforcement; while speech that some deem "seditious" is somehow not protected, when of course the intent of the first amendment was exactly to protect those who speak out against the government.

Letter to state leadership on state sovereignty

I sent this letter to our state leadership:

We have a right to defend ourselves and our borders.

We do not need federal money, federal help — we can take care of our own problems. (Since when did every natural disaster become a federal emergency? Really? Please, we states should be self-sufficient… how dependant we’ve become!).

Only, please, don’t let them take our money, if they’re not going to provide the services it was supposed to pay for.

Oh, and all that illegal stuff the US congress and president are doing (let’s call it “extra-constitutional”…), please don’t let them take our money for that.

I expect to pay for the common defense, roads, a postal service, a judiciary, and a few other things. The rest… youcome and take it, you jerks. Everything else should be a state or local taxing issue.

The federal govt would not be a problem, if the states would stand up and stop it. Let the state of Texas defend citizens who pay taxes only to fund the legitimate purposes of the federal govt. By force if necessary. We have the moral imperative. That’s all I need. They won’t kill or imprison us all — they’ll lose public support long before that. Let us only fund the legitimate purposes of the federal govt.

Please, we don’t need more catchy rhetoric, prove you’re not just another big-government progressive republican, who does “just enough to get the 'conservative' vote.”

…really, my federal tax dollars are paying for abortions overseas, for invading foreign countries (Libya) without congressional approval, 3 years of unemployment, etc...

Please help.

If our state and local politicians would stand up for our liberties (those of the state and of the people), the federal government would not be a problem. This union *is* a voluntary compact. And if they will not respect the articles of organization of the compact (that is, the U.S. Constitution), then we ought to depart it.

Nullify. If that doesn't work, then Secede. The only way to stop a mugging is to resist, by force if necessary. We have a right to defend ourselves, and to exit a contract that the other party is not honoring.

Thank you.