To my brothers of the pen, I am glad to be among you again. My hiatus was caused by a combination of factors and while I have stopped by to read from time to time I did not comment or blog.

The truth is I’ve been getting more involved in the nuts and bolts of local elections. I’ve gathered signatures for candidates to appear on the ballot, confirmed registered voters affiliation, handed out literature, joined my local “true the vote”, registered to be an election official, served as a delegate in my local precinct for the Republican Party, and just generally meet and plan with other conservatives. This has been very rewarding and enlightening, but alas time consuming as well.

The news is the Tea Party is in what is referred to as “Tea Party 2.0”.

This is in contrast to the previous actions of the Tea Party as essentially a groundswell of Americans gathering to protest Government overspending—stimulus– and excessive involvement in our personal lives and financial choices—as personified by the Affordable Health Care Act, Obamacare. Two years ago “we the people” gathered peacefully in extraordinary numbers in a civil tone to compel our “representatives” to, well, represent us rather than their party. They chose instead to keep it real with their socialist peeps.

Never have so few spent so much for so little.

With our elected officials deaf to our concerns, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that is our economy, and lining their pockets through insider trading, fact-finding trips, overcompensation with extraordinary perks, the Tea Party began to form into more sophisticated groups with core members and quasi-leaders. A close examination followed of the electoral system that got America into the position we find ourselves in. By this I am referring to intra-party elections and appointments.

It was obvious that “Primaries” were only keeping the status quo—favoring the incumbents and making it cost prohibitive for would-be opponents. Also, because we do not identify voters by party in Virginia, Democrats could (and would) cross over to vote in the primary—giving us a weaker, more liberal candidate.

The answer was clear. We need to pick our candidates through conventions rather than primaries. To accomplish this we need to control the state party. With our (The Tea Party) victories we’ve accomplished our short-term goal of seizing control of the state party allowing us to move to conventions from primaries and ensuring that we field conservative candidates in future elections. This election cycle will hopefully be the last where we have primaries. When Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli runs for Governor next year it will be a room of true conservatives deciding on whether he is the Republican candidate.

The Ron Paul people have elected many representatives within the Republican Party and they tried in Virginia as well but due to their earlier victories we were ready to fend them off. The Ron Paul people only ran in a few select categories because they had to pay an additional fee to vote for all categories. But between the Ron Paul people and the Tea Party, the Republican Party is being pulled toward a more fiscally responsible right leaning stance. The RINO’s are being weeded out.

Things are looking up.

I know that numbers crunchers are advising the candidates about the demographics which will determine the outcome of the November presidential election, and I won’t dispute whatever conclusions they draw. However, this one man’s observation is quite simple: two camps who won’t determine the outcome are on the far side of each aisle. Staunch Democrats see in Obama the embodiment of their principles of liberal government, even when his actions belie the platform. They will vote Obama no matter what. Staunch Republicans are just as incapable of seeing anything good in Obama. He could convince Al-Qaeda to denounce Islam and hand over all their guns and ammo, devise the means to make the US an economic juggernaut, and cure cancer, and those opponents would still vote Romney.

So the middlers and the independents are the ones whose votes are out there to be won. The question is which subgroup will be influenced by which issue. I think that Obama will begin now with solidifying the issues that liberals promote, such as gay marriage and environmental issues. I think Romney will do the same with staying firm on immigration and reducing the size of government. What I am wondering about are the other issues and the effects on the undecided or the still-to-be-influenced voters.

Will Obama relent and support the Keystone pipeline? Will he open up oil reserves to reduce gas prices and take the high price complaint off the table? Will Romney soften his stance on gay marriage, or make any and all tax increases a target for his stump speeches?

I have trouble with this component of the process because I don’t think the monor issues, like gay marriage, and abortion, and a number of others are critical issues. We have had more than 40 presidents, and they have had myriad opinions on those side issues, and we don’t evaluate them as effective or ineffective presidents on the basis of those issues.

The legacies of presidents are determined by some simple issues. Did they keep the American people safe? Did they promote the expansion of the economy and thereby foster a higher standard of living for the people? Did they support programs that allowed or encouraged individuals to improve themselves and their lot?

I did not like John McCain’s positions on a number of things, and momentarily considered voting Democrat in 2008. However, when Obama made larger government a natural effect of his vision, I ran in the right direction. Because Obama will be the left candidate, I am among those whose vote cannot be won. I am fascinated to see what each candidate will do to sway the swayable.

What do you think the issues of significance will be?

Sens. Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey announced the Ex-PATRIOT Act this morning. The legislation is intended to counter a tax avoidance scheme where U.S. citizens renounce their citizenship to avoid paying certain taxes. For most of us, this type of tax avoidance is not an option, but for the very wealthy, it can be financially rewarding. Case in point is Facebook gazillionaire, Eduardo Saverin’s decision to renounce his U.S. citizenship and repatriate to Singapore.

The senators call Saverin’s move to renounce his citizenship last year “an outrage” and a “scheme” designed to skip out on the IRS — especially in light of the big payday he’ll get in Friday’s expected Facebook IPO.

Their plan would also bar expats like Saverin from ever re-entering the U.S.

The senators proposed the “Ex-PATRIOT” Act — which stands for “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy” — in response to Saverin’s move, which they say will “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.” - Politico.com

This whole episode spurred something in my memory banks from a comment offered up by one of the GOP hopefuls in a debate.

Now who was that? And what was it in reference to?

Oh yeah…

Ron Paul warned us about this very thing….

Well, it’s official-Mitt Romney is the last GOP candidate standing. Ron Paul, like the others before him-announced he’s suspending his campaign for President. Translation: when a candidate “suspends” their campaign it means they are dropping out of the race altogether. No backsies or do-overs, unless they throw their hat into the ring for the 2016 race. Well, that’s another thing and four years from now.

Now the question is, what happens to the delegates from each candidate has accummulated? Are they going to back Romney out of allegiance to the GOP party? I wonder where is Ralph Nader, the perennial Green Party Presidential candidate is this election. I notice how they are listed on the ballot on the day of the election and I or any other voter has probably heard of them. I don’t recall seeing any of them campaigning in the recent months. Where are any third party candidates? Back in 1980, there was John Anderson who ran for President as an Independent candidate. Didn’t Ross Perot, the millionaire from Texas run in ’92 as an Independent? It’s funny, I actually know of people who voted for him and admitted to it. He was eccentric and quirky as hell, he started off as a Republican and then jumped shipped to run as an Independent. Kind of like Joe Lieberman the senator from Connecticut. He was a Democrat, a Vice-Presidential candidate and then all of a sudden changes party affiliation, becoming an Independent.

Just like every election, there are issues that need to be addressed-health care-(cough, cough-Obamacare) education (No Child Left Behind) jobs/unemployment, gay marriage and defense. No doubt these are hotbed topics to consider for any election but the topic of gay marriage really has been put out on the forefront the last few years. Obama has definitely ruffled feathers with his stance on and support of gay marriage which may hurt his chance with some voters.

As the greatest of the American capitalists of the turn of the 20th century understood, superiority belonged to those who held economic might and economic might came from control of the means of production. In fact, control of the means of production was what won the Civil War for the North, the Second World War for the Allies and the Cold War for the United States. For decades, no one in the world doubted our nation’s ability to out produce anyone else in the world while holding the vastest supply of natural resources and the native market to support that level of production. As long as we were the mightiest economy in the world, we could force the world to bend in any direction we chose—and we did. This is the foundation for the concept of “American Exceptionalism” that so many conservatives and libertarians are promoting and mourning the loss of.

These conservatives and libertarians blame government for the disappearance of “American Exceptionalism,” but in fact they only have to look at their supporters and donors for the true culprits. The loss of “American Exceptionalism” is not new and has little to do with Obama’s so-called “apologizing for U. S. supremacy” and more to do with the now 40 plus-year trickle of America’s control of the means of production to other nations, some of whom are arguably our enemies.

Look back to the “heyday” of the 1950’s. Blue collar jobs in manufacturing and production were plentiful and provided a basis for a solid, prosperous middle class who drove a strong consumer market. Cheap, legal labor performed by minorities and women was available for the production of inexpensive goods. America had an abundant and seemingly unlimited supply of natural resources. Technology developed during World War II was fueling the development of a wide range of innovative products and technology, which were then manufactured by American workers in American plants. The means of production were here, from start to finish, and the excess inventory was shipped around the world. With many goods, the only way to get a quality-built, long-lasting product was to buy American. American workers and American industry became confident and complacent in their assumption of continued superiority.

All that began to change in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The recognition of civil rights for minorities and equality of pay for women drove up the cost of artificially cheap labor. Many small items could be made cheaper using foreign labor and these items became so cheap they were disposable, so quality was no longer an issue. A period of prolonged peace for the majority of the world allowed nations such as Japan and Germany to focus their industrial might on producing things such as steel, automobiles and heavy equipment. China was beginning to rebuild its formerly feudal society into one dominated by central control. After a while, Americans became used to the flood of cheap foreign goods from countries such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan and companies began to move their factories to these nations—the beginning of outsourcing. As production of American goods began to take place outside the country, the American technology used to produce them fell into foreign hands as well. Nations such as Japan did not have to research, develop or create innovative products; they only had to reproduce and tweak them in order to capture the market. Foreign goods became as good, if not better, than American-made goods and were still cheaper.

By the 1990’s the majority of goods sold in the United States were manufactured in other countries, such as Mexico, China, India, Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam and Bangladesh. Many of these goods were being produced by “American” companies, but the means of production were anywhere but America. Since the means of production for American goods exist in foreign countries, then the means of production for American goods lay in foreign hands. The governments of those nations or any strong militant interest, are free to take over and control those means of productions anytime they choose and stop production, divert distribution or control inventory as they choose. THESE NATIONS have control of the means of production, not the United States or the “American” companies that “own” them. And as Carnegie or Rockefeller would tell you that means that these nations are the ones with economic might and superiority.

With China being the undisputed leader among these nations, with over one-sixth of the world’s population alone for use as cheap labor, it could be argued that China, and not the United States, has world superiority. Think that’s BS? Just ponder what would happen if China launched a full trade embargo with the United States; no import or export of goods or services with the United States. How much of the merchandise on store shelves would disappear? Who in the United States would be able to produce those goods, period, or at a rate and cost that matches China? Answer—nobody! India has almost as many people as China and is a large supplier of labor for the technical sector in this country. What if they chose to do the same? Where would the computers and other technology this nations now relies on come from and the technical support needed to maintain it? Not from here!

Ladies and gentleman, once we get over this ridiculously false notion that we are superior to everyone else and begin to humble ourselves into working with the rest of the world in response to a situation our nation’s industrial leaders and our own complacency created, the better off and more prosperous we will be. The greatest of our modern economists understood the power of division of labor and that is our shining beacon. Instead of thinking “America First,” maybe we should look more at how we can become a vital, indispensable niche in the world economy other than as a consumer of everybody else’s goods. We need to find what we are best at in the entire world, specialize in it, guard it and certainly not export it to everyone else. If we do not, we will not even be able to sustain our power as a nation of consumers and our children and grandchildren will continue to watch our slide into mediocrity and irrelevancy.

A few moments ago president Barack Obama posted a picture in his Facebook timeline. In the picture there was a statement by Barack Obama saying that he approves same-sex marriage. Strategically gay marriage is clearly one issue Obama wanted to get him differentiated from Mitt Romney in the presidential election campaign. Romney´s stand has been practically the same as Obama had in the previous election 2008. According to religious beliefs Romney says that only man and woman are meant to be married. However he stands for equal civil rights for the homosexual people. This is quite common way of thinking in democratic, civilized countries. The underlying discrimination is covered by the religion.

Obama´s new move in his social media strategy shows how his campaign management is able  to follow the trends. Since the last presidential election 2008 Obama has been dominating the social media campaign. The gay rights and other good causes are something that people are ready to stand for in the social media. By changing his mind Obama was able to make a clear difference between him and Romney. Having served as the president of the United States during the financial crisis Obama has challenges in convincing the voters of his economical capabilities which is an issue that Romney has raised in the campaign.

Thus Obama took a huge step to the liberal side and it is yet hard to estimate wether it will work on his benefit. Changing mind can also be harmful for a politician. This is true especially in Obama´s case because the change is quite huge from other extreme to another. However it is considered only human and shows leadership in some people´s eyes if a person in power is able to change his mind about things. The campaigning strategy is so obvious that it may irritate some voters. But having said that people in the USA understand the name of the game in presidential elections. It is all about media campaigning.

As I said in one of my previous blog postings, November is fastly approaching us. In fact it is right around the corner and will be here before we know it. Scary, isn’t it? Most recently, Rick Santorium and Newt Gingrich suspended their campaigns. We all know that is another way of saying they will fade into political oblivion like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. Rick Perry just went back to being Governor of Texas. Sadly, Ron Paul is hanging on by a thread. Oh yes, he does have his staunch supporters but how much time will he keep hanging in there before he throws in the towel.

It seems like the obvious ticket for the 2012 Presidential Election will be Mitt Romney and our current Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama. As far as who Romney is going to choose to be his Vice-Presidential running mate, there’s this hispanic politician from Florida. What’s his name…ahhh, it’s Marco Rubio. There is another one that’s come up in discussions in the media, Tim Pawlenty.

Former Presidential candidate and Arizona senator, John McCain offered up Romney the advice to choose a running mate that he can trust. Perhaps McCain is speaking from experience there. Politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn’t it? We can only assume what’s going to happen in November. The election is six months away and it will be here before we know it. We can be apathetic, choosing not to vote by saying there’s not a candidate worthy of our vote. Or we can vote for who we feel is the best candidate for the job even if that means voting for a third-party candidate.

Elizabeth Warren had this to say about her opponent for the Massachusetts Senate seat:

My Republican opponent, Scott Brown, campaigned, campaigned against health care reform. And when he got to the Senate, he voted to block health care reform. We just learned today, back in Massachusetts, that he is using that same health care reform act to make sure that his adult daughter gets covered on his health insurance policy – at the same moment that he wants to repeal it for everyone else. This is wrong. This is wrong.

Let’s follow this argument to its logical conclusion, shall we?

I presume that Elizabeth Warren opposes the continued extension of the Bush tax cuts. By her logic, it is morally reprehensible for her to continue to benefit from them, so she should be paying a higher tax rate right now, and for every year she campaigned for their expiration. And because she benefits from those cuts, she should not be campaigning to end them.

Pretend that I opposed the 16th amendment to the Constitution, you know, the one that created the Income Tax, and was actively campaigning for its repeal. By Elizabeth Warren’s logic I should not pay taxes because I am campaigning against it.

Suppose I oppose the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, like Ron Paul does. By Elizabeth Warren’s logic Ron Paul and I should not use dollars issued by the Federal Reserve Bank (i.e., the only legal U.S. currency).

President Barack Obama, as Senator from Illinois, opposed an increase in the debt ceiling, calling it a failure in leadership. By Elizabeth Warren’s logic, he should not have voted for ANY spending made possible by the increase in debt. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest he DID vote for more spending.

As a nation, if we buy Elizabeth Warren’s argument, then we have lost all reason. And without reason, we are lost.

The United States of America was founded on revolution, political evolution and compromise; a nation unlike any other on Earth. At the time of our nation’s founding, governments were primarily either monarchies or states governed by warlords who took their territories through conquest. The rights and welfare of citizens were not a primary concern, if a concern at all; the consolidation and protection of power was. Not only did citizens of a state have no say in who lead them, they had no say in the actions taken by those who lead them. At the same time, these leaders collected taxes to support themselves and their desires– truly “taxation without representation.” A few countries like England allowed a form of republic, but only the landed class, wealthy merchants and aristocracy were represented, not the common man.

Our Founding Fathers stood at the forefront of political thought in their day. The great philosophers John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Jean Jacques Rousseau had only recently excited the intellectual and political elite with their concepts of a society founded on liberty and the equality of all man. Previous to this revolutionary concept, rights were arbitrary and largely determined by parentage and connections. The notion of every person possessing equal inherent and inalienable rights was a new and radical idea. American colonists fully embraced this concept, since it was ideal for their newly discovered land devoid of an established society or aristocracy. The American Revolutionary War was not just a revolution against foreign intrusion; it represented a revolution in political ideals that was a natural evolution of Enlightenment thought.

John Locke, who Jefferson himself named as his inspiration for the Declaration of Independence, proposed in his Social Contract theory that in order to achieve the security and protection of rights promoted by inclusion in a society, members of that society must abridge or give up certain rights, such as the rights to judge and punish. Locke and his contemporaries understood that you cannot equally guarantee the rights of men all of the time, since the truly free exercise of one person’s rights will nearly always come into conflict with the absolute rights of another. They believed free exercise of rights should naturally be limited by what best promotes the rights of society as a whole. The rights of states, as individual members of a single nation, would also be subject to limits in order to promote the benefit of the nation as a whole. The strong democratic federal government envisioned by the Federalists was one that did not exist before because it recognized the inalienable rights of all as its mandate for power and in acting to promote maximum rights for all, it was justified in determining and prescribing proper limits for the rights and duties of its citizens. Democratic society and its government required a level of cooperation and compromise in order to survive and thrive.

The process of creating the Constitution and ratifying it was an example of this type of compromise; one that would be unheard of in today’s politically contentious climate. The Continental Congress of 1787 was composed of two very powerful, yet diametrically opposed, camps fighting for what they both thought was right—Federalists, who believed in a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who were in favor of a reformed confederacy of states with a minimal loose central government. The strong central government achieved in the Constitution allowed the new United States of America to create a unified foreign policy, regulate trade between states, pay its debts and debtors, and establish a uniform currency and economic policy that steered the nation away from financial ruin without creating an oligarchy. This strong central government also ensured the legal recognition of the inherent rights of all men (even if MEN in the original Constitution only meant white male landowners) found in the Constitution. Without the central government that many objected to as too strong and omnipresent, the United States would have remained a bunch of squabbling nation/states ripe for the picking by powerful foreign nations and in constant danger of civil war.

Today’s even stronger federal government, with its vast level of responsibility for the welfare of the American people, is NOT a bastardization of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers or their original intent. In actuality, it is in line with the original philosophical tenets that formed the context in which our nation was founded because it fulfills its duty of protecting the rights of society as a whole while safeguarding the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution places no scope or scale on the federal government, nor does it place a maximum limit on the level of protection it provides for its citizens. It DOES define the shape of the federal government and provides limits on how much it can infringe on the particular rights of American citizens delineated in the Bill of Rights. As long as the federal government maintains the same shape and does not infringe on the rights protected and identified in the Constitution, it is constitutionally valid regardless of size.

When libertarians and conservatives argue for a weaker federal government that they feel better represents the Founding Father’s original intent, I feel that they display a lack of understanding of that intent and the philosophical context that informed it. Without proper context, any interpretation of what the Fathers intended is meaningless. If you do not consider what the fundamental purpose and responsibilities of a society and its government are, how can you judge if it is doing a good job? Simple…you can’t. There are many who, for their own selfish motivations, want to remove any control exerted by the federal government by shrinking it and removing its power. They ignore context so the government can be presented in the negative light in which they wish it to be seen and hasten its demise. Is the federal government an infallible, perfectly run organization? No. Is there room for improvement? Sure. It is, after all, a human institution and therefore imperfect. But reforming it and shrinking it until it can be effectively meaningless are two different things. Government is necessary to protect society’s rights and to balance the influence of the rich and powerful who would place their rights over the rights of all. Without it, America would be a free for all where only the richest have the ability to exercise their rights and survive…definitely NOT what the Founding Fathers intended.

I recently saw this article and read the first paragraph and was floored. I can’t believe this nation has nothing to do except worry about who is going to control Congress!

Shouldn’t we be trying to FIX the nations problems instead of worrying who’s going to get that high paid salary?

Oh wait, well the answer to that is: let’s not worry about the people starving and homeless, but we should worry about feeding our fat congressional wallets. Hmmm…

Our founding fathers would be so proud.