Like I mentioned yesterday, I will be watching President Obama’s speech to America’s school children with my children later today.  We have little ones around here, so we’ll be using the elementary lesson plans, legal or not. Actually, we’ll be focusing specifically on this question, because it fits perfectly with some ongoing conversations we have been having around here:

Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?  Classroom Activities, Pre-K-6 (pdf)

I’ll let you know my children’s answers to that later, after I ask them, but here are mine:

I.  I’m Christian, and the bible is pretty clear:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake:  whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.  For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:  As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.  –1Peter 2:13-16 (KJV)

I consider myself blessed to live in a nation whose ordinances allow me considerable liberty to express my disagreement with established authority, but I try very hard to apply this verse especially to my discussions:  “For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men…” By well doing hearts and minds are changed, not by inflammatory rhetoric.

II.  These are our elected leaders, and our responsibility as citizens is pretty clear.

The Salvation of the state is watchfulness in the citizen.  –Hartley Burr Alexander, inscribed on the Nebraska State Capitol Building

If we do not listen, we cannot know, and if we do not know, we cannot act.  Listening precedes all useful action, something I fear some may be forgetting.

Please share your thoughts on the prepared speech, the speech as it is delivered and the accompanying lesson plans.  If you had the stage, what would you tell America’s youth?  And what have you told your own children?

Obama school walkout education homeschooling

Update: The text of the speech is now available.  Is he seriously going to say “God bless you. God bless America”  to every student in America?

Tomorrow, President Obama will speak to the nation’s school children, presumably about setting education goals and staying in school.  At least that is what the White House is saying.

This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation’s school children about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong.  Letter from Secretary Arne Duncan to Principals

This historic moment.  We are inviting students to become a part of history, much like when I was in school and the television cart was rolled in to watch the Challenger lift off.  I don’t know why I exactly stumbled over that part of Duncan’s letter to principals.  His job is PR for the program, but it still seems a bit over the top.  Even if George Bush, Sr. hadn’t done it almost 20 years ago.  The technology may be a bit different, but it appears that speech was about succeeding in school and was intended to address all students.

Both Bush’s went much further than Obama toward making our schools a national stage for federal education politics.  Granted, Obama wishes to go further still, but the course has already been charted.

For twenty years, we steadily shift the power in education from the local community toward the federal government, and do nothing but occasionally grumble.  The president makes a speech, however, and we call for a National Keep Your Child at Home Day.  Suddenly, we’re worried about brainwashing in a “totalitarian-type telecast” befitting “banana dictators.”

Compared to the power we have willingly handed over (even demanded to be taken from us), I must agree with Joanne Jacobs on this one.  What is so sinister?

It certainly isn’t because he’s black, so why the uproar?  Honestly, I think a lot of it has to do with something My Domestic Church quipped.

This president has used more prime time press conferences and informercials than any previous president.

Even liberal bloggers can see a bit of public relations overkill in the speech and its pre-game show.  Which brings us back to that word “historic” that made me choke on my coffee.  But there’s more to it than just that.

Read the post over at American Elephant.  How much of it really has to do with the speech?  Not much.  Instead, it is expressing general frustration over the direction the country is heading.  It is a direction we have very little control over individually, but we certainly can pull our kids out of school for one day.

One day.

Education has been moving toward national standards and centralized control for my entire life.  Finally, some people are standing up and saying “Enough.”  Unfortunately, it is an insignificant gesture aimed at an irrelevant event.

Incidentally, I do believe it is important to listen to the President so I’d like to invite you to discuss the speech here tomorrow.  We’ll be doing some warm up activities I’ll share here for discussion before viewing the video.  I have an appointment so will be watching it after the copy is made available, but feel free to share your thoughts!

education Obama speech My education, My future

Driving into Olathe earlier in the week, I was greeted by a large flashing highway sign:

Fireworks illegal.  Happy Fourth of July!

All fireworks.  At one time, at least, that included sparklers, though the police seemed to have enough to do that one day without crashing barbecues to confiscate sparklers from children.

Last year, I and every other driver crossing over the border at Brownville got pulled over.  Police officers peered through the windows and inquired:

Are you transporting any fireworks?

Because just up the road a tad, over in Missouri, you can still buy things that blow up.  Way up.  They are illegal here, but according to the sign, at least, you can buy one and get three free.

Looking out for the public health and safety is certainly one of the jobs of local government, but does banning all fireworks really make things any safer?  When I was younger, we generally only fired off a few at a time before moving to another location.  Or drove outside city limits to set them off down some country road.  A friend of mine took his out to a nature center because, well, there just wasn’t anyone around.

Looking over some of the damage caused by fireworks so far this year, I’m struck by a few things.  Some people are just plain stupid.  No law is going to protect a seventeen year old kid who sticks a firework between his legs to muffle the sound.  Nor will it protect communities where kids are found to be driving about aiming them at people.  But there were a few grass fires started, as well.  And I think about my friend back in high school.

That “the laws don’t work” is not really a very good argument.  No laws really “work” or there would be no crime.  But do anti-fireworks laws and campaigns really do anything to make us safer over the holiday?  Or could they inadvertently encourage nincompoops like the teenager mentioned above?  After all, fireworks safety is rarely part of the discussion.

Granted it was put out by the American Pyrotechnics Association which has an obvious interest in the sale of and use of fireworks, but I think they make a good point about safety education.

The NFPA is a powerful voice when it comes to public safety education. They have done a commendable job educating the public on fire safety and burn prevention with their other programs like Sparky the Fire Dog and Risk Watch. The APA believes that if the NFPA joined forces along with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Council on Fireworks Safety and fire departments across the country in promoting safety tips for responsible consumer fireworks use, that message would have a significant impact in helping to further reduce the misuse of fireworks.  The Free Library

So what do you think?  How can communities best balance public safety with the public’s desire to blow things up at least once per year?

And will you be setting of fireworks this year?

Either way, I wish you a Happy Independence Day!

fireworks Fourth of July Independence Day anti-fireworks

Don’t get me wrong.  I think this actually sounds like a very interesting and productive course I would have liked to have taken when I was in college.  There is something unique and exciting about doing productive and meaningful work as opposed to the normal and seemingly endless term papers which end up in the trash or stuck in a folder at the end of the year.

But as I read about the reports these undergraduate students at the University of Iowa are preparing at the request of lawmakers, I naturally stumbled over one line.

The organization has produced reports ranging from textbook costs to eminent domain to homeschooling to absentee and early voting. Last year, the class pulled together at least a dozen reports.  press-citizen.com

And I naturally want to know if they are certified.  Is a one credit hour preparatory seminar really enough training? Can one professor really provide adequate oversight of these students who are being given the power to sway legislators by the reports they provide?

These are undergraduate students at a state university preparing the very documents which will determine how the state approaches topics as important as property rights and the educational rights of families.

Certainly I have at least as many formal qualifications to home educate my children as these students have to research the topic on behalf of the state, right?

homeschool homeschooling home education

Senator Tony Fulton is a conservative Republican running for legislature in Nebraska’s 29th district, covering a pretty conservative section of the capital city.  He is also well-known around here because of his support of homeschoolers during LB1141, a bill introduced this year which would have required homeschoolers to submit to greater state oversight.  This history isn’t viewed as favorably by his opponent, Susan Scott.

(Full size image available here.)

A few thoughts:

Educators agree…

I’m sure many do.  And I am sure that Ms. Scott was an excellent teacher who has a lot of experience to share.  But according to the Nebraska State Education Association, “teachers did their homework” and endorsed Tony Fulton.  So did the Nebraska Home Educators PAC.  What gives?  Perhaps it is possible to both support public education and the rights of parents to educate their children at home?

As an educator…

I have no problem with this section.  She appears to be a fine teacher who I am sure would have a wonderful perspective to offer on education, especially since so much of her work was in special education.  But I will say that being an excellent teacher does not necessarily qualify one for political office.  I would like to know more about her suggestions in a mailer such as this, rather than a focus on a skewed view of the opponent’s stance.  Perhaps this is just me, but it also appears as if she is attempting to imply an endorsement from the teacher’s union which she does not have.

Diverting needed money…

This section brings up two separate and completely unrelated topics and splices them together in such a way that I think it would be easy to get the wrong idea about what Senator Fulton actually believes and advocates.  He did introduce a bill which would have diverted money from education to roads, as referenced in the small print (Lincoln Journal Star, “Redirect Funding to Roads”, 12/19/07).  This had nothing to do with home education, but with one of those other issues facing the state…gas taxes and road construction.

Nebraska needs some revenue to cover the maintenance and construction of roads.  We have a lot of space to cover and a small population base to share the costs.  This year, the legislature voted to increase the gas tax, against the protest of the people.  Other proposals have included additional taxes on trucks coming through the state whose destinations are not here in Nebraska.  What Senator Fulton actually proposed was changing the distribution formula for the motor vehicle tax slightly to divert more funding to roads.  The money has to come from somewhere, and somehow, taking it from the motor vehicle tax makes an odd sort of sense.  The original formula gave 60% of the tax to local school districts whereas Fulton’s proposal would have given districts 55%.  [Text of LB 741 pdf]

Update: Senator Fulton sent me an email clarifying the redirection of funds.  I’m still looking for a source, but in the meantime this is what he says in regards to funding education:

One interesting addendum regarding LB741:  as I have proposed that mechanism to fund roads, I have also proposed holding schools harmless with General fund revenues.  In this way, it is a type of tax shift.

Instead, he advocated for homeschooling…

He certainly supported us.  Of course, as a homeschooler, I see his support of our right to direct the education of our own children as a tremendous positive.  And this attack makes me a little more uncomfortable with Ms. Scott.  But the article cited in her mailer is a little odd, and available online: Homeschoolers to hold rally at State Capitol.  You will have to scroll down.  It is actually a text box within an article which outlines the activites of the Nebraska Christian Home Educators’ annual Legislative Day where homeschoolers meet at the Capitol, learn about the legislative process and have the opportunity to speak with their senators for a few minutes.  This year, it happened to fall right after the introduction of LB 1141 and was not organized in response to it, contrary to how the description reads (although some of the schedule was changed to give more time to speak with senators about the issue).

And Senator Fulton was part of the opening ceremonies.  He undoubtedly demonstrated strong support for us, and has thus earned much loyalty from homeschoolers in his district and even beyond.  However, his education policy, contrary to what the casual reading of Ms. Scott’s mailer might imply, does not divert funding from public education to support homeschooling.

And a note on homeschooling and funding…

Senator Schimek’s proposed bill to increase oversight of Nebraska homeschools would have cost Nebraska additional funds…funds it does not currently have and funds that would have likely come out of the education budget.  After all, standardized testing is not free, nor are the certified teachers to oversee their administration or to go over the portfolios which were offered as an alternative.

Local school districts often speak of homeschooling as if it diverted funds away from education because funding formulas give them money based on attendance.  However, we pay the same property and motor vehicle taxes as everyone else in the district.  And it costs money to educate a child…money that is not spent on homeschoolers.  According to the US Department of Education, we spend on average $4,934 per pupil for instruction.  This does not include many of the expenditures which remain when a child does not attend school (such as the building, etc.).   The district may not be getting our tax dollars directly as they would if our children attended public school, but the state has more money to distribute because of our choice.

In fact, the Heritage Foundation pulls together some different statistics on homeschooling to demonstrate just how much homeschooling saves American tax payers.

Given the Department of Education’s conservative estimate of 898,000 students who were educated entirely at home in 2003, the National Home Education Research Institute’s estimate of 2 million homeschool students, and the national average per pupil expenditure on instruction, homeschooling likely saves American taxpayers and public schools at least $4.4 billion to $9.9 billion in instruction costs each year.  The Economic Benefits of Homeschooling.

In Connecticut, First Selectman Tom Marsh even proposed a $3,000 tax credit to homeschoolers in order to save the state money.

Support for homeschooling does not have to mean that public schools suffer.  In fact, the mere existence of homeschooling provides the state more money to spend on education and a small amount of competition for the public schools.  Across the United States, we see schools altering their programs and allowing for more flexibility and individualized solutions in an attempt to attract homeschoolers back in to the schools.  This makes our public schools stronger, not weaker.  And it gives more families more real opportunities to make sure their children are receiving an excellent education.

That is sound education policy which benefits all Nebraskans, not just one segment of the population.

homeschool election ’08 Tony Fulton Susan Scott

Sprittibee hates talking about politics, and yet she can’t seem to stop.  I love talking about politics, and yet I just haven’t desired to wade into those waters.  But I’ve been asked so I thought I would answer.

There is a rather popular idiom common to Western nations, but peculiarly prevalent in American politics which summarizes the way many of us on the conservative side feel about our political choices:

I will be voting for the lesser of two evils.

Meaning, of course, that we see two options available to us, neither of which we are particularly keen on.

And in this election, with a strong Christian in the running, many have responded to this frustration with a slight turning of the phrase:

If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.

But there I must beg to differ.  The “lesser of two evils” is merely an idiom.  It does not, in fact, mean that either choice is “evil” in the biblical sense of the word.  It means only that they are both unpleasant.  There are a number of issues I disagree with John McCain on, but I cannot call him “evil” merely because we have a different vision for the direction our country should take.

And honestly?  I have as many concerns about Chuck Baldwin as I do about John McCain.  He is a pastor, not a politician.  That is not a bad thing, but at this point I have no idea how well he can lead a city, let alone a state or a nation.  He has said a lot of things as a pastor which are good and right, but I do not know what that means when I try to apply it to politics.  Perhaps with more familiarity, my discomfort would be alleviated, but I know from experience that not everyone who starts talking about “biblical principles” and “our founders’ vision” means the same thing I do when I bring up these phrases. Some of them mean something very different, and worse than anything John McCain or Barak Obama would bring to the nation.

The Volokh Conspiracy passes Baldwin off as “an enthusiastic purveyor of all manner of far-right conspiracy theories.”  Baldwin has stated that on the day he is elected, “the New World Order will come crashing down.”  Really?  And how does he propose to do that?  Conspiracy talk always pushes me away, but I have not yet been able to decipher what kind of conspiracy theorist he is.  The problem is that in all of my research, most of the theories I have tracked down have their origins in very anti-semitic and often racist ideologies which began to surface in the late 1800s, with the focus shifting from the “Jews” to the “international bankers” in the 1930s.  That is not to say that everyone who holds these views is anti-semitic or racist.  Baldwin certainly isn’t.  I only mention it to provide some context for my own biases in these discussions.  That and the lizard people.  I tend to lump it all together, fairly or unfairly.

But to get back on track with this, to say that the NWO is going to “come crashing down” is a rather odd rallying cry.  And why I would like to know more what he means when he is talking about the NWO.  To me, I cannot separate it from the notion that the Free Masons and the Illuminati control the world…in which case the election has been decided.  But then to focus heavily on our nation’s founding seems odd since most of our founders were Free Masons, a factor which contributed heavily to their ability to meet “in secret” under the noses of the British.

I question his biblical interpretation when he reaches to Ezekial 22:25 as proof that there is a “conspiracy.” There was a “conspiracy” or “treason” of Israel’s prophets, but that is not proof of what most conspiracists are talking about, and fully irrelevant to what he is talking about.  And he completely lost me somewhere between the moneychangers in the temple in John chapter 2 and the international bankers setting up shop in the “temple.” What temple?  Then there is his reading of the Declaration of Independence:

In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” If that isn’t a clear reference to conspiracy, I don’t know what is.

I’m sorry, I don’t see it.  I see no reference to conspiracy, only to the right and duty of people to throw off despotic governments.  Ironically, the Declaration of Indpendence was a “globalist” document as our founders attempted to make their case for independence before the court of the world.

I am a devout Christian.  And I do have concerns with what we often call the “secularization” of America.  But words like this concern me in a world leader, regardless of his religious leanings:

After all, the United States of America was a nation established in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and for His glory. The founders of this country were emphatic about that! Therefore, the imprint and influence of the Savior are seen and felt throughout the length and breadth of this nation. And it is that same imprint and influence that the secularists are feverishly attempting to expunge . . . Therefore, if America wishes to remain a free and independent republic, if this nation truly desires future peace and prosperity, and if we genuinely aspire to remain a blessed and protected land, we must quickly throw off this foolish infatuation with multiculturalism, which is nothing more than an attempt to de- Christianize our country, and humbly return to the God of our fathers!

This is what I’m talking about when I say I don’t know how to take his positions as a pastor and apply them to politics.  Is he going to “expunge” America of secular influence?  Does that mean doing away with freedom of religion and liberty of conscience?  Does it mean a theocracy?  I may agree that we’d be better off returning to Christ, but bringing that about is not the role of government.

Then there is this, written right after 9/11, which I have read five times and I’m still not entirely sure I know what he is saying.

Second, the architects of an internationalist, New World Order must not be allowed to expunge the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. We cannot allow our own government to do by fiat what foreign terrorists want to do by force. Americans must not surrender their liberties to any government. It is more important to be free than it is to be secure! In truth, liberty by its very nature is a risk. We must never give in to the temptation to acquiesce our God-given freedoms.

America doesn’t need the approbation of NATO or China or anyone else. We certainly don’t need the blessing of Pakistan! The United States of America is a free and independent nation and must never accept any attempt by internationalist influences to diminish our freedoms or abridge our rights.

I think he is saying we don’t need to work together with other nations or ask their permission to invade Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda.  If so, I disagree and wonder what kind of foreign policy we would have if this were followed.  As noted above, we sought the approval of the world in our own fight for independence.  How much more do we need to work with other nations in order to go to war abroad?  And we must remember that the attack on the World Trade Center was not just an attack on the US.  It was an attack on all nations, and other nations have suffered terrorist activity within their own borders as well.

Perhaps I am left voting for the lesser of three evils, but I am seeing it less that way every day.  None of the candidates embody all I would have in a president, but what does that say?  We are not raising up leaders to the task.  Even we, who talk about limited government, are looking to central government to secure that.  Something has gone awry, but it happened long before this election season.

And for your reading pleasure, a couple of things from others on the election:

Dr. Del Tackett on Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils.

And Reverend Peter Marshall on One of the Most Important Elections in American History.  I don’t like this one as much, but I do appreciate his point about an incremental approach.  And it is similar to the point I was trying to get to in the homeschool deregulation plan in ND.  We tend to look at things as black and white, all or nothing, rights respected or rejected.  But we drink milk before we eat meat, and I think that is an apt analogy for how we need to correct our government.

And please feel free to discuss the candidate you prefer, your frustrations with this election or your enthusiasm for your candidate.  And out of curiosity, do you know the issues in your local races as well as you know the issues facing these gentlemen?

January 17, 2008, 23 month old Cyrus Belt was thrown to his death off a pedestrian bridge in Hawaii. This ended a short life apparently characterized by abuse.

Cyrus was just one day old when his first child welfare file was opened. Just six days before his death another threat of abuse and neglect complaint was registered with the state. By last Thursday, the day of the murder, the case manager had not yet visited the family. If authorities had intervened sooner in that week, would the unthinkable have somehow been averted? KHON 2

While the Child Abuse and Neglect team within the Honolulu Police Department was speaking with his case manager about this latest report, police found the toddler wandering the streets and returned him home. Now the public and legislators are wondering if better communication between departments might have prevented this tragedy.

But who could have guessed that the boy’s grandfather would allow Matthew Higa watch the boy? And that he would throw the child off a bridge? Less than half an hour after he was returned home by police?

Couple this with a 2007 case in which twelve year old Indigo Wright was nearly starved to death at the hands of her mother. All the while a family member knew of the abuse but failed to report it to authorities.

And that gives you the backdrop for a flurry of activity designed to protect children in Hawaii:

• Senate Bill 3055 (pdf) broadens the group of persons required to report child abuse and neglect to include family members.

• Senate Bill 3056 (pdf) establishes a pilot project allowing the Department to conduct well-child follow-up visits for children who have been reported but not confirmed as abused or neglected.

• And the Hawaii Department of Human Services is also exploring a new policy:

In an unprecedented move to increase the safety of vulnerable children, the Department of Human Services (DHS) has announced plans to give the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) direct access to internal records from the child welfare system. Hawaii Reporter

SB 3055 bothers me although I don’t know that I could necessarily say I oppose it. After all, anyone who knows that abuse is occurring and does nothing to defend the victim becomes a part of the abuse. Still, somehow it seems doubtful that anyone who would sit passively by as a child is abused would care one way or the other what the law says about reporting.

SB 3056 seems to violate the Fourth Amendment. What probable cause is there to revisit the home on the same allegation that has already been proven false?

And it looks like there may be some federal privacy restrictions to overcome with DHS’ plan.

But it isn’t really the measures themselves so much as the reactionary nature which bothers me. So much of this type of legislation, including that which affects homeschoolers, is driven by a single, high-profile case.

What about all the innocent people who are pulled under state oversight because of fear that one of these bizarre cases might be repeated? After all, they make headlines because they shock. And they shock because they are so far outside what is normal even under what constitutes abuse.

photo credit: seaniz

[tags] Cyrus Belt, Indigo Wright, child abuse[/tags]

Perusing blogs today, I could not help but note a touch of despair. Shanan Trail is switching parties. Consent of the Governed depicts a suicidal Republican Party. The QuipSpot wants to sue the Republican Party for false advertising. And Paul’s Ponderings seems to be where I have been for awhile as he asks, “Where have all the true conservatives gone?” And in a small quote in Paul’s entry, I see a kernel of what I believe is really the source of the problem with this presidential election.

Conservatism is about the role of government in our lives. Part of the problem is that the term conservative has been hijacked by people who believe that it is the government’s role to promote their ethic.

The underlying problem here, and I think it is behind a lot of the despair as well, is that we all place far too much importance on the Federal Government, and on the executive especially. As our culture changes, we seek not increasing ministry opportunities, but amendments. When we become concerned about what the schools down the street are teaching, we don’t arrange meetings with teachers, administrators and school board officials. We all but bypass the local political process in our rush to put our issues in front of the central government. We have stopped thinking about conservatism as a governing principle, and begun looking at it as a set of issues.

Take a look at point six of the 1860 Republican Party platform:

6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensible to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans, while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.

The Republican Party was founded on this idea, only to what? Bring its own brand of reckless extravagance to every department of Federal Government? Including a few that did not even exist at the time? So is it time for a change?

If so, we are going to have to look at another issue that really girds our current dilemma. Our complete lack of interest in local affairs. If we as conservatives truly believed that the best government is the one that is “closest to the people,” we would show remarkably more interest in local politics. Instead, we focus on the presidency and when it looks like that may be lost, we decide to stay home.

But what about the rest of the ballot? And those politicians who will be governing closest to us?  As The Lady Logician notes, there are a lot of passionate, hardworking conservatives still in office.  Find out who they are and give them your support.

And in case you are wondering what that picture up there has to do with this entry, the second edition of The Heart of the Matter is up! And my article for this month deals directly with this issue: Freedom is not a gift, fighting for educational liberty.

[tags]election, 2008, Republican, conservative[/tags]

Skimming through Spunky’s posts on Huckabee, I came across a comment that illustrates most of the conversation I have had recently regarding the current presidential race. Despite the warning to not “get too depressed,” Quiverdaddy does present a rather dismal picture of this presidential race in regards to a truly conservative candidate, as he dismisses each one based on his stances on various issues, narrowing it down to the last three.

Now consider who’s left: Dr. Ron Paul, Huckabee and Fred Thompson. If we take Huckabee out of the picture, consider Dr. Paul’s support of prostitution and legalizing drugs, and get realistic about Fred Thompson’s chances, there are no alternatives.*

No alternatives. I came to that conclusion myself some time ago as I attempted to sort out whom I would be voting for in the upcoming primaries. There are things I like about each of the candidates, but none of them has the “complete package” this die-hard conservative and Reaganite is looking for.

While I would not exactly characterize myself as a Ron Paul supporter, I have been frustrated by the complete lack of attention he has received in the national discussion during this presidential race. He appears to be wholly an internet phenomenon, likened to Howard Dean who also dominated the internet, yet lost the nomination.

What Ron Paul brings to this race, or at least could bring if he received the media attention that even Huckabee received with HSLDA PAC’s endorsement, is an idea of liberty and of self-government which was birthed in this nation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… Declaration of Independence

Ideas, however, are like seeds which need to be planted and nurtured before they bear fruit. They do not come to fruition all at once. As John Adams noted in an 1818 letter to Hezekiah Niles on the beginnings of the American Revolution,

The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.

We have had four years of George Bush, Sr., eight years of William Clinton and eight years of George Bush, Jr. While I am not so far away from center to dismiss these candidates as nothing but the “same old same old,” none of them have upheld true conservative values of limited government. That is twenty years. An entire generation.

For my readers who, like me, are conservative and are a little troubled by the lack of a conservative candidate in this race who also seems able to pass the “electability test,” let me leave you with a thought:

In 1964, Barry Goldwater gained the Republican nomination but lost the presidential race to incumbent Lyndon Johnson. Dubbed “Mr. Conservative,” Goldwater is credited with sparking the resurgence of the conservative movement in America. While he never attained the presidency, the idea that propelled his candidacy did not die.

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. A Time for Choosing

The very man who delivered that speech on behalf of Goldwater would eventually become President upholding these very same principles–Ronald Reagan. And it only took seventeen years.

_____

(*For the record, my understanding is that Dr. Paul neither supports prostitution nor the legalization of drugs, but rather believes this should be left solely to the discretion of the states.)

[tags]Ron Paul, Huckabee, politics, election, Republicans, conservatives[/tags]

According to Political Science Professor Larry Sabato, our Constitution is a little out of date.

There have only been 17 amendments (the first 10 must be considered a part of the original document), one of which simply reversed another, others of which have been quite minor. Despite the new realities of the modern United States, our government runs under the direction of a document written with quill pens. This is not what our founders envisioned. Thomas Jefferson insisted that, “No society can make a perpetual Constitution…The earth belongs always to the living generation.” He wanted major Constitutional reform every generation. One of Jefferson’s great contemporaries, James Madison, agreed on the matter, saying that constitutional revisions would be “a salutary curb on the living generation from imposing unjust or unnecessary burdens on their successors.” Daily Kos

I have always thought these basic facts demonstrate how successful our Founding Fathers were in constructing a government based on principles of liberty. Nonetheless, Mr. Sabato wishes to invoke Article V of the Constitution to call for a National Constitutional Convention to be held October 19, 2007 in the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C.

The goal of the National Constitutional Convention is not to promote one possible reform over another, but rather to spur a grand, national discussion on the Constitution of the United States and whether the cornerstone of our republic could or should be a means of revitalizing civic and political engagement in America, curtailing apathy and renewing confidence in American politics and government. A More Perfect Constitution

And, of course, to promote his new book, A More Perfect Constitution. Maybe if it is burned on a DVR it will have more authority in today’s world?

Mr. Sabato’s suggestions are designed to retain the basic principles of individual liberty, federalism and the separation of powers. I fear if we really opened something like this up, however, what we would end up with would look more like the Bill of Rights for the 21st Century we discussed back in April: a complete redefinition of rights.

But what we really need to do in order to ensure the liberty Jefferson sought to protect in his letter to Madison quoted above does not involve major revisions to the Constitution itself. Instead, what we need to do is return to a time when our representatives asked whether or not they had the Constitutional power to do what they proposed to do rather than how to secure and broaden their powers.

In other words, we need to stop viewing the Constitution as a living document, amenable to our whims. Because, as Jefferson stated in a letter in 1803,

Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

We have essentially made our Constitution a blank paper by construction. No Constitutional Convention can change that. We either respect it for the bounds it has set on government, or we discard it.

Incidentally, Larry Sabato is also the author of an American government text book used in high school, American Government, Continuity and Change.

So how would you change the Constitution?

government, Sabato, Constitution, A More Perfect Constitution