Why?

Why does the media give attention to the Democrat candidates, including hours of prime time television coverage of their debates, like the one last evening December 19, 2019, when the Democrat party identifies with only 31% of voters? Easy answer. Over many, many, years, voters have been duped into believing that the two major political parties are a constitutional requirement of the election process. If so, where is that shown?

Political parties are “private” non-governmental groups of like-minded voters. The method by which they select and endorse candidates and issues is their business, and only theirs. ANY taxpayer funds expended solely for the benefit of any political party, or voter group, using a public resources, are unconstitutional.

If a political party has a closed primary, using public facilities that must be available to any political party, the public election costs thereof must be reimbursed 100%.

State election laws that place unreasonable qualifications or other barriers in the lawful conduct of any political party or voter group are unconstitutional. Unreasonable is defined to the understanding of voters, not the state

And last, the identification and placement of the legal name of a political party on a candidate or issue ballot line, or other governmental material, pertaining to any open election is unconstitutional.

My opinion.

Our Sovereign Rights

It is a principle of our nature that the individual is sovereign. The cultural meaning of the word, sovereign, is to be, “independent of, and unlimited by, any other. Too often we let others intimidate us because of something we said. You know their retort, “I can’t believe you think that!” WHY NOT! Below I have listed 10 sovereign rights we each possess, for which we make no excuse. Attribution is unknown.

1. You have the right to judge your own behavior, thoughts, and emotions; but, to take the responsibility for their initiations and consequences upon yourself.

2. You have the right to offer no reasons or excuses for justifying your behavior.

3. You have the right to judge if you are responsible for finding solutions to other people’s problems.

4. You have the right to change your mind.

5. You have the right to make mistakes and be responsible for them.

6. You have the right to say, “I don’t know!”

7. You have the right to be independent of the goodwill of others before coping with them.

8. You have the right to be illogical in making decisions.

9. You have the right to say, “I don’t understand.”

10. You have the right to say, I don’t care!”

Are you a Gray?

Building the Conservative Party, a new political party, was never going to be easy. It requires people that are inherently builders, people with the long view. Our volunteers are wonderful, they understand the obstacles and are challenged to overcome them. I’ve been doing this stuff a long time and thought I recognized most of the obstacles. But I must confess, after recently reading many thoughtful essays about the changing culture of America today, I see another one.
 
No longer do we have “Right vs. Wrong.” Or, “Good vs. Evil.” Or, “Lawful vs. Unlawful.” In other words, absolutes. Everything is a shade of gray. Which means, I fear, we no longer have that traditional audience of real Conservatism which embraces many absolutes. Case in point.
 
The Conservative Party believes as complete and unconditional that marriage is made by one man and one woman. No gray.
 
The Conservative Party believes as complete and unconditional that abortion is intrinsically wrong. No gray.
 
There are more. Consequently, think for a moment, if everything is “gray” have we reached the point where the value of political parties is eroding to becoming meaningless? If all opinion is “gray,” are there any bold colors of opinion?
 
Measure yourself. Are you a “gray?”

Are we here?

Are we here?

Fillppo Mazzei was born in Tuscany, Italy in 1730. He was persuaded to come to America by Benjamin Franklin to produce certain agricultural commodities he was skilled in. Thomas Jefferson took a shine to him and Mazzei bought land next to Jefferson. Between Jefferson and Mazzei, Mazzei started writing political articles in Italian which Jefferson translated for printing. Here is a portion of one, the first part winding up in the Declaration Of Independence, but the concluding part is what predicts.

“All men are by nature equally free and independent. This equality is necessary to establish a free government. Each one must be equal to the other in natural rights. Class distinctions are not always static and will always be nothing more than an effective stumbling block, and the reason is most clear. Whenever you have many classes of men in one nation, it is necessary that you give each its share in the government; otherwise one class will tyrannize the others. But the shares cannot be made perfectly equal; and whenever one class takes power, human events will demonstrate that the classes are not in balance; and bit by bit the greater part of the machine will collapse.

For this reason all the ancient republics were short-lived. When they were stabilized, the inhabitants were divided by class and were always in dispute, each class trying to procure a greater share in government than the others; consequently the legislators came to yield to the prejudices of custom, to the contrary pretensions of the parties, and the best that could be had was a grotesque mixture of liberty and tyranny.”

Happiness

Although the Conservative Party does, indeed, pay fidelity to the Constitution, it also honors all the documents of the founding of America. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

On this 2015 Memorial Day, we honor those servicemen who gave their lives for these Rights. Although “Life” and “Liberty” seem to be understood well, “Happiness” can get a bit foggy. How does Happiness figure in as an element defining government?

About 50 years ago, a young lady we only know as named Michelle took her life, but left this with us.

“My happiness is me, not you.
Not because you may be temporary,
But also because you want me to be what I am not.”

Happiness from government is more than the political argument; too big, too small, not caring, too much caring, etc. “My happiness is me, not you.”

There is no Federal budget aspect to happiness. No taxes are needed. There are no Federal crimes of happiness. No new laws are needed.

Quit telling me what should make me happy! “My happiness is me, not you.”

CP-LA April 13, 2015

A few days ago, the Baton Rouge Advocate presented two long articles about the two sides of a possible incorporation of a new municipality in East Baton Rouge Parish to be called St. George. We applaud the Advocate for it! The Conservative Party USA of which the Louisiana Conservative Party is an affiliated state party has always stressed the right of the voter to assert “self-determination” in presenting new ideas. After respectful debate, it is then at the ballot box that the “winner” is found. The fact that opposing sides exist does not mean there is a divided allegiance about the “public good.” We have to get away from the notion that one side possesses a superior answer to what is always the “public good.” No side or class is permitted to dominate in our country.

This evening, Florida Sen. Rubio will announce his candidacy for the position of the President of the United States, joining with already declared presidential candidates Sen. Cruz, Sen. Paul, and Hillary Clinton. In Louisiana, state-wide candidates are beginning to announce. The political “season” is heating up which is why I write.

The State of Louisiana has the most open election system in the country. Contrast that with the State of West Virginia which has not elected anyone but a major party candidate since 1906, or 109 years. In fairness, they are attempting to change that now. I hope you are as proud of our Louisiana system as I am. Louisiana voters can make a huge difference in Louisiana when it comes to voter “self-determination.” But the critics will say that’s why Louisiana can get a candidate the likes of David Duke. Yes, but that is freedom. When the freedom door is open, it’s open to all. That means you and the Louisiana Conservative Party can make a difference.

The Louisiana Conservative Party is looking to recruit a volunteer “Chief Political Officer.” You see, we believe in working “smart.” Our volunteers, and we are all unpaid volunteers, have strong conservative values, and express them often. However the “art” of politics requires talented experience. This would be a person that is experienced to walk the halls of our capital building. Loves to corner elected officials for commentary. And understands “spin” when it’s spoken.

Help us find that person. They, or if it’s you, should contact me at mail@cp-usa.org.

Go to jail in Indiana

Because we are a representative republic, citizens elect candidates to represent them in a political deliberative assembly, being a library board, city council, or some state and federal office, to name a few. Although the elected representative is expected to carry into the deliberative assembly the political culture of his or her constituents, once officiating, the elected representative is legally afforded the right to use his or her considered judgement in resolving issues brought before them for a vote.

Recent events on “talk radio” and cable news have initiated much discussion  about calling an Article V Amendment Convention. Simply stated, Article V of the U. S. Constitution provides for two methods of introducing amendments to the Constitution; either by Congress, or by States. In either case , final state ratification of amendments remains the same for both. Why two methods of introducing amendments? Our Founding Fathers understood human nature very well, that being that Congress would never proceed to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that ceased or diminished its own powers. Although a “call” is required in the case of a state requested Article V Amendment Convention, only Congress may do so. Congress is not authorized to debate the merits of the State submitted amendments, only call the convention.

When an Article V Amendment Convention is held, delegates to the convention are selected as “Representatives” by and of the peoples of the state from which they have been elected. Delegates to the amendment convention are not controlled by Congress, or state legislatures, except in the case of the states, where the state will oversee the nominating and election “procedure.”

Can you see where this is going? The Article V state introduced amendment process shifts to the “people” and away from Congress. Surprise, surprise. Congress has never made a “call” for an Article V convention. However, it may be getting close, which leads us to Indiana.

Just recently, fearing the future, the legislature of the State of Indiana passed into law (Sen. 224 & 225) what is considered beyond doubt by many legal scholars an unconstitutional Act. My reading of the Indiana law requires that SHOULD an Article V Amendment Convention be called by Congress, the Indiana delegates shall be agents of the state, not the state’s people, and if Indiana delegate “agents” do not follow the state’s instructions, they are to be removed from the convention and may be charged with a felony crime.  Like, JAIL!

This message of mine is to alert Indiana voters about something they may not know anything about, or were misled about what purpose the Indiana law set out to remedy. Surely there must be someone in Indiana that will sue to reverse the unconstitutional Indiana Act.

 

Culture

America was created by its Founders based on what it was “meant to be,” not what it “might be.” America today is not what it was meant to be but sliding swiftly under President Obama to something else.

I am 100% Italian, the offspring of family existing in a region of Europe for so long it’s beyond grasp. My family surname is 2,000 years old. I bring this up to make a point, not to impress you. My parents are from the “old country.” My father went to the 4th grade, while mother, the 6th. As I entered my teen years, it was a mystery of sorts to me as to amount of wisdom each had, yet so little education. One day (true story) I asked my father, “How come?” My father answered, “We trust our culture!”

America, as a nation, is over 235 years old. Enough time, now, to reasonable say, we have an established American culture. Until very recently, we Americans used to trust that culture because America was what it was meant to be.  Americans, even newly arrived immigrants, functioned well based on their acceptance of the American culture. My parents learned it well and quick. That was the time of the 1900-50’s.

I lament less today about Obamacare or other present-day Washington establishment moves, than I do about losing our American culture. America is a Judea-Christian nation established in our culture. Sharia law is foreign to it. The liberals promoting the introduction of other cultures in America say that America was meant to evolve over time, meaning putting it in the “might be” category. No! Our Founding fathers knew exactly what they designed as a nation, and today is not what they “meant” America to be.

Marriage, one man, one woman.

Marriage, one man, one woman.

The side of the debate on marriage by liberals invariably centers on “rights.” The Conservative rebuttal is to revert the debate to the natural law, because natural law trumps civil rights. Don’t let this point unsettle you because it is the same reasoning that placed attention to it by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. They understood the natural law.

Natural law demonstrates that male and female were created for one another for the procreation and education of offspring. Mankind has understood the societal magnitude of the coupling of a male and a female, and over time gave it definition and protection; marriage. However, bear in mind, the underlying natural law conditions to marriage are sex, procreation, and education of offspring.

This understanding of the natural law regarding procreation has a recorded historical basis of thousands of years. The Judea Christian biblical reference often used about procreation has to do with Zechariah and his childless wife, Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-25). In the times of Zechariah, a Jew who had no children could be removed from the temple (God). Childlessness has always been grounds for divorce. Actually divorce is a less accurate term for a lack of procreation in marriage. The better term is annulment, because the natural law prescribes that “marriage” not open to procreation, is no marriage.
Therefore, without procreative sex, homosexual marriage is a nullity, a void, because the sexual attraction, a condition to which we admit exists, can never procreate because the natural law made no physical provision for it.

Summary Points
1. The natural order attracts male and female into procreative sex.
2. Society found this to be good and protects the procreative union, which replaces society numerically.
3. Homosexual unions are a procreative nullity, which reduces society numerically.

Walk the Talk

There is a modern-day taunt to those that speak with empty words to “walk the talk!” In my age, we would say that one should “put their money where their mouth is.” Using the thought behind these two phrases, I would like to discuss Conservative activism. We hear the chant repeatedly, “I am a Conservative.” But it begs the question, “Are you walking the talk?”

To most, the meaning of conservatism is one of a common sense emotion rather than principled statements like those contained in our U.S. Constitution. In many ways, that’s not all bad and can be illustrated by how we follow our culture in everyday living. Culture is the act of development by education. Education not necessarily “higher education” but, civilization handed down. As a young child, I was constantly reminded by my immigrant parents to “trust your culture.” Not words like that, but an exact quote!

Culture is similar to “averaging” in mathematics. My electric bill goes up and down from month to month. But having lived in my home for such a long period of time, I can predict what my next month’s bill will be. An outcome of averaging. But, what if my electric bill next month has doubled? Quick answer is that I find out why, and attempt to remedy the situation.

We have about 400 years of culture in America. Until recently, our citizens could arise in the morning and know what to expect. Oh yes, unfortunate things happened, and there were social adjustments along the way, even wars, but generally, we are a positive attitude nation and live on the expectation that “the sun will come up tomorrow.” There existed a sort of “cultural average” that we lived with and expected.

However, as I illustrated with my utility bill, Americans have now arisen to find that there has been a “spike” of cultural change in our country during the past twenty years. The problem is that the “vast majority” (my use) recognize the spiked change, don’t like the changes involved, and want to reverse most of them. Still, there will be those that will quickly use my utility bill illustration against any cultural remedy, by stating, “Perhaps the reason your electric bill was so high was that you left the air conditioner at 68 degrees and went off for a month vacation.” In other words, “It’s your entire fault.” If facts reveal that it was indeed my fault in leaving the air conditioner on while away, I accept the responsibility of my action. But what if not, and it had something to do beyond my responsibility. What then? Accept, or fight back?

It is my contention that most reasonably enlightened Americans understand that changes will occur, and that our national cultural average will rise and fall slightly over time, given the nature of averaging. Where the ordinary citizens become enraged and overcome with frustration is in believing that they have been left out of the averaging equation. Frustration and controlled rage are emotions, and can be good motivational drivers to initiate action. But, again, even with an emotional assist, what attempt by direct action do most make to reverse an unwanted change? Unfortunately, not much. Too often the response about inaction is that it is beyond the capacity of the individual.

Not so. If we really believe that conservatism revolves around the individual, then, remedies to unwanted changes also revolve around the individual. However, the rub is too many individuals in today’s society have been “schooled” in the idea that all societal change falls in the “Sacrament of National Government.” I would like, here, to postulate three simple rules of activism, there are many more, that are available to all at the individual level.

1. Written Criticism

Any complaint or criticism, even when made in person, should be evidenced in writing whenever possible. Never phone. Politicians and public servants get real nervous when anything in writing can become part of the record.

2. Identify your accuser

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says, in part, “…to be confronted with the witness against him;” That concept has real meaning at the individual’s level beyond its normally held judicial use. Let me give you an illustration. About a year ago, I received a notice from my City public works department demanding that I cut the grass on a vacant commercial lot I own. The city ordinances permit vacant lots to have grass higher than what you might expect in a residential neighborhood. Knowing something was fishy; I took a photograph of a yardstick stuck in the grass at my lot, and then went “downtown.” I asked to meet the inspector that issued the notice. The reply was, “Oh that complaint was phoned in by a neighbor. We didn’t inspect it.” “In other words” I replied, after showing the photograph, “your department issued an official notice to cut grass, over the signature of an inspector making a false statement.” Never heard about the matter again!

I simply use this illustration to recommend that any notice you receive over the signature of a public servant, insist that you deal with that person, face-to-face and/or in writing.

3. Make your own donations

In my opinion, one of the greatest community failures in recent history has been in the area of non-profit organizations. If one delves into the controlling management structure of many, they will be found to be managed by corporate type individuals, and not the volunteer type of past. Dollars become important, while mission becomes less important. Do not give to “omnibus” charities. Make your own charitable decisions. If you are pro-life, why would you donate to a United Givers campaign only to have the agency grant funds to an abortion clinic? In one stroke of a decision, you have made a meaningful pro-life difference. And it was done at the local level without any necessity of “permission” by a legislative body.

I can go on, but I will not. You have been kind when you made it this far with me. I thank you. Please remember that common sense actions accomplished by just one individual, when multiplied by others, can make a difference in restoring our “cultural average.”