William Ayers and Why he Matters.

Check out this essay on American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/getting_the_ayers_issue_straig_1.html

State's Rights Redux

On January 20, 2009 either John McCain or Barack Obama will take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Wouldn't it be nice if someone would ask each candidate if they stand by the long forgotten 10th amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people."

There can be no doubt what this means. The powers of the federal government are delegated in the Constitution, period. What the Constitution does not specifically list as a power of the federal government belongs to the States and the people. Only someone with a Harvard law degree can turn this into something else.

The Constitution specifically lays out the powers of the U.S. government, and then, in the Bill of Rights, we are assured in the 10th amendment that the federal government can do no more. This is connected to the basic premise of our republic--that government is created by the consent of the governed to protect rights given to them, not by man, but by God himself. The Constitution, therefore, is document of the people consenting to be governed by a set of rules to protect their God-given rights. It is not, as Obama and other liberals believe, a "living, breathing document" that changes at the whims of each generation to mold it and shape it as it sees fit. The Constitution gives a method to change if needed. This is what we call the amendment process. It allows the governed to consent to changes to the document. Liberals prefer to hide under the guise of "judicial activism".

What did our founders think? Better yet, what did the one person who was most responsible for our Constitution think? Read the words of James Madison:

"The powers delegated by the...Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce...The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the states." (Madison, Federalist #45)

Everything that Obama plans to do involves increasing the role of our already over bloated federal government. My guess is that 95% of all the federal government is involved in cannot stand up to the requirements clearly listed in the 10th amendment. The same can be said for McCain as well, unfortunately. Both candidates see a strong role for the federal government. The difference is that Obama is traveling at top speed toward socialism, while McCain is merely going the speed limit. Both, however are traveling in the same direction.

How can a government so involved in our personal lives and other extra constitutional roles truly function well at its main role as stated by the constitution which is to protect its citizens from enemies abroad and within?

The destruction of rights and freedoms don't always come at the hands of angry dictators. It can also come with a smile.

The "Joe the Plumber" debate

Obama's answers to every question asked of him in tonight's debate can be summed up as "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".

This election is a referendum on collectivism. Will the American electorate give a nod to socialism on Nov 4th?

Tilting at Windmills

In 1955, when Bill Buckley launched National Review magazine, he began a conservative revolution. At that time in history, it seemed that conservatism was dead. Yes, Eisenhower was President, but Ike was no conservative. The Republican party (what was left of it after the New Deal) was in ideological shambles. It quietly embraced Rooseveltian government and no longer railed against statism. Yes, the average person was still basically conservative in the 1950's, but among the elite there had been a drastic shift leftward since the early 1930's. In academia, leftist philosophy had won the hearts and minds of most intellectuals who understood socialism as the next phase in our economic & social evolution. Those who would be teaching our future leaders in prestigious universities were indoctrinating their students with existentialism, relativism, & socialism. To begin a political and social magazine promoting true conservative thought in that milieu seemed to be an exercise in tilting at windmills. Buckley described his efforts as standing "athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

Yet within a decade, the movement that was spawned in the pages of National Review had its own presidential candidate heading a major party: Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was crushed by LBJ in 1964, but the movement lived on and eventually lead to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

I have no delusions that what I'm doing here is some sort of Buckliean feat. However, I do know that there are millions of Americans who long for the American Conservative movement to once again exert itself strongly in politics and culture. They long to take back their schools, churches, and public squares away from the doubters and cynics.

I just want to do my part.