theTrents.org - ...putting the FUN in FUNDIE on a semi-regular basis...

On the Washington State GOP Convention

matt — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:46:23 -0700

My wife and I, and some friends of ours, were delegates to the state GOP convention in Spokane last weekend. We went to represent liberty, constitutionality, conservative Republican values, and the man who has best embodied them in our lifetimes: Ron Paul. He gave us hope for America and the Republican party. I'll be honest, if it weren't for Ron Paul's convincing, our youth and talents would be anywhere but the GOP. But Ron Paul is right: we are Republicans and we need to stay Republicans.

I haven't read any media coverage that was even remotely realistic, but I suppose that's to be expected. Politics is indeed a dirty business! I promise you have no idea exactly how dirty until you attend a hotly-contested convention.

But I want to relate some of the positive moments.

The first occurred Thursday night at our Ron Paul delegate meeting. We sang a hymn, "Amazing Grace." All 550 people crammed into that small stuffy room rose, and the passion rang as loud as the words. Next a gentleman offered a prayer of invocation. Not a generic, scripted formality as we often hear, but a desperate plea to Almighty God from Americans united in love of liberty and country. It was a beautiful thing.

The second happened during the district caucus Friday afternoon. Ron Averill was beaten in the election for chair. Without a second thought, he headed up front and rendered gracious assistance to the younger, less experienced chairman. I have no doubt things may have gone smoother had Mr. Averill been elected. But he obviously understood the value of letting somebody else have the experience. Thank you, sir!

The third was Saturday after lunch, after all the divisive vote signaling signs were put away. Votes no longer delineated so strictly along presidential candidate lines. Folks voted as Republicans and individuals, not supporters of one candidate or another. Very refreshing!
...CONTINUED...

Lessons from the Lewis County GOP Convention

matt — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:32:52 -0700

I attended the Lewis County Republican Convention last weekend. It was a great experience for a young person who'd never done anything like that before. I was honored and a bit surprised to be elected to the state GOP convention, and I even got a funky-looking picture of myself in the Chronicle!

Here's what I learned. First the good:

* The level of involvement afforded to average individuals during the process is remarkable. This is representative democracy in action. Politics really does begin at the grassroots and filters up. Don't underestimate your role as an individual citizen!

* I got the impression this process hasn't seen such vigor in a long time. Among Republicans there is some debate as to following the traditional conservatism of Reagan, Goldwater, and even Jefferson, or the "neo-conservatism" of late; but the benefit is in the dialogue. That's why I went. I could tell some of the "old guard" appreciated this as well. I want to especially recognize Lewis County Republican chair Mark Anders for his friendly, helpful attitude.

* There's a fantastic Republican named Michael Delavar running for the 3rd congressional district against Democrat Brian Baird! I'm really impressed with this guy. Check him out at www.delavarforcongress.com.

* Parliamentary procedure isn't as scary as it sounds. In fact I rather enjoyed it.

Now the not-so-good, and I count myself foremost of offenders:

* It's apparent we care more about personalities and promises than character and results. And party loyalty trumps principle any day. Because we're not willing to consider short-term losses, we settle for merely slowing what we ourselves make inevitable. Unfortunately, no net gain can be made if we keep voting for the lesser of evils.

* We will sell our very souls to feel safe. I listened to reluctant McCain supporters dismiss his spurious conservative credentials and abject character defects, up to and including adultery and murder of the unborn, because he promises we'll be safer with a little more war.
...CONTINUED...

It is not Enough to Simply Breathe

matt — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:49:15 -0700

This article was adapted from a post on opencarry.org's forums by user "swilden".

The original topic was an article about a college student who was detained, questioned, temporarily hospitalized, had his property confiscated, and was eventualy expelled. Even though he was released without conviction and determined to be sane and safe, his record and name have been permanently besmirched. His student loans became immediately due upon his expulsion -- a financial disaster which may force him to re-enlist in the Army. His crime? An overly-dark fictional story in a creative writing class. Look out, Stephen King, or anyone with an imagination for that matter!

Interestingly, the student found the forum and joined the discussion. It turns out he's an Iraq war vet and a pretty average/responsible/intelligent individual. But that didn't much matter to the "thought police" who destroyed his education, reputation, and finances.

The original posting and opencarry.org thread are here, and the adapted article is below:

Let's think about it logically. Supposing these were the only choices: either lock-up everyone who might have a problem, or accept that tragedies like the VA Tech massacre will occasionally happen. Which is worse, really? I strongly suspect if you compare person-years wasted in hospitals by people who would have never actually become mass-murderers to person-years of life lost by those killed by cases like [VA Tech shooter Seung-Hui] Cho, locking up all of the “maybe-Chos” is orders of magnitude worse, especially if the policy is extrapolated nationwide.

This goes back to a big problem I have with our nation today. We value breathing above life. By that I mean we're willing reduce the quality of life of millions for the potentiality of keeping one person alive -- not necessarily the guaranteed or even likely REALITY of saving life, but often just a nebulous PROMISE or PERCEPTION of it. The great men who declared United States independence saw exactly the opposite. Patrick Henry was perhaps a little louder than most, but he captured the basic sentiment well, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
...CONTINUED...

Principle above Party: I'll Never Vote for McCain

matt — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:05:47 -0800

To my fellow Republicans:

I'm a life-long Republican. I've never missed a vote, and I've never
voted for anybody but Republicans.

But more than that, I'm a CONSERVATIVE!

As a conservative, I will NEVER vote for John McCain. I'm not the only
one who feels this way.

You can't sell me ground beef and tell me it's filet mignon. I would
rather endure years of Democrat rule than compromise my principles so
egregiously.

At the very least, my hope is our Party will wake up and take this
DEFEAT as a loud-and-clear message. Conservatives are the lifeblood of
the GOP. We won't be abandoned so easily.

Ingsoc

matt — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:25:58 -0800

It's 3:30am and I'm re-thinking a discussion at the caucus yesterday with a nice guy named Jeff. The subject matter swirled around the Iraq war. What occurred to me is I'd had that conversation before -- only I was Jeff!

Having myself voted for Bush both times, supported the war, and wholeheartedly subscribed to the whole neocon shtick like a good little Republican, I feel perhaps uniquely qualified to analyze these conflicting mindsets.

So what does it it really come down to? What reasoning can make us such staunch believers in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

"War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength."

"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia."

In this case fiction is still stranger than truth, but not by much.

The article Orwell's Oceania and Bush's America captures it well.

I also picked up strong themes of "might makes right" and "the end justifies the means" from my conversation with Jeff (or any "whack 'em with the freedom stick" neocon-type). Pick your cliche and we've bought it.

Mike Huckabee is no Conservative

matt — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:16:16 -0800

Mike Huckabee, the non-conservative:
* Espouses the inaptly-named "FairTax", which would impose an up to 30% national sales tax and create America's largest entitlement system to distribute "pre-bates" to offset the shortcomings of a heavy-handed consumption tax.
* Created healthcare entitlements in Arkansas. Supports more government interference in healthcare.
* Earned the nickname "Tax Hike Mike" by raising taxes significantly more than he lowered them in Arkansas. Bill Clinton raised taxes less during his governorship.
* Proposes the most drastic increases in federal spending of any of the candidates.
* Supports the educational trainwreck "No Child Left Behind".
* Supported minimum wage increases.
* Favored a nationwide smoking ban.
* Increased AK state spending by 65%, three times the rate of inflation.
* Is soft on immigration and benefits for illegal aliens.
* Favors farm subsidies.
* "Calls global warming a 'moral issue' mandating 'a biblical duty' to prevent climate change, he has endorsed the cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market."
* Destroyed the GOP in Arkansas. The real conservatives are still trying to clean up the mess.

Mike Huckabee, personally:
* Has been implicated in numerous ethics violations.
* Abused clemency powers, resulting in a sexual assault and murder by a Huckabee-pardoned criminal.
* Named to Judicial Watch's list of "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians".
* Shamelessly panders to Christian voters and uses Christianity for political gain.

Sources:
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_huckabee
http://www.taxhikemike.com/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080124/NATION/8463148
...CONTINUED...

John McCain is no Conservative

matt — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:08:44 -0800

John McCain, the anti-conservative:
* Co-sponsored with a Democrat an egregious attack on freedom of expression called McCain-Feingold.
* Stated in 1999 he favored upholding Roe v. Wade.
* Supports the destruction of human life through embryonic stem cell research.
* Joined with Democrat Ted Kennedy to support amnesty for illegal aliens in 2007. Has supported welfare benefits for illegal aliens.
* Earned an "F" rating from Gun Owners of America for supporting all manner of gun control legislation.
* Voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Has voted 52 times to increase taxes.
* Said Hillary would make a "good president".
* Basically agrees with Al Gore on global warming and supports anti-industry regulations to that effect.
* Would boost, rather than cut federal spending, by $6.9 billion annually.
* Was endorsed by the liberal New York Times.
* Is endorsed by Republicans for Choice (RFC), a group of pro-abortion Republicans.
* Has no concept of national sovereignty. Supported, with Barack Obama, a "binational" plan to improve health care in... Mexico.

John McCain, personally:
* Has committed adultery on several occasions.
* Is known for his out-of-control temper and hurling profanities at colleagues.
* Was involved in the famous Keating Five campaign finance scandal, which makes McCain-Feingold even more ludicrous.
* Is extremely hawkish - has alluded to "more wars" and a draft. Suggests we stay in Iraq 100 years more.
* Has called Christian leaders "agents of intolerance".
* Is, ironically, no friend of POWs.

Sources:
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24771
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/1181
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/buchanan.html
...CONTINUED...

Caucus Speech for Ron Paul

matt — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:37:50 -0800

Hi, my name is X. I live on X St. with my wife X and our child X.

This is my first caucus! I've voted Republican every election since I was old enough. But I'd became pretty apathetic toward the whole thing. Every few years the names changed but the results didn't.

Today I want to tell you about the doctor who cured my apathy and renewed my hope for America. He's a man of principle, integrity, and consistency.

His name is RON PAUL -- a 10-term Republican Congressman, medical doctor, husband of 51 years, father of 5, and grandfather of 18.

As conservatives and Republicans we believe in:

* Individual freedom and limited government. RON PAUL has NEVER voted to increase the size of government or raise taxes. They call him "Dr. No" for his strict Constitutional voting record. He is the only candidate committed to protecting individual liberty and respecting our Constitution.

* A strong economy through free markets, responsible spending, and lower taxes. RON PAUL is the only fiscal conservative in the race, period. He's the only candidate really talking about monetary policy, inflation, and the spending/printing/borrowing that's debasing our dollar, lowering our standards of living, increasing gas prices, and leaving a mountain of debt to our children. Only RON PAUL's platform would result in lower federal spending. *Every* *other* *candidate* wants to SPEND MORE MONEY WE **DON'T** HAVE. What's conservative about that?

* Strong national defense. RON PAUL believes in keeping America safe by maintaining the best military in the world, fighting to win, and SECURING OUR BORDERS. RON PAUL is the ONLY candidate with a flawless record of fighting illegal immigration. As a veteran himself, RON PAUL is committed to taking care of our veterans. Maybe that's why he's received more donations from the military than all of the other Republican candidates COMBINED. RON PAUL supports our troops, and they support him.
...CONTINUED...

Found on the Internets: "I am Ron Paul"

matt — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 07:38:38 -0800

I am Ron Paul.

I didn't used to be. I used to believe that the United States was the most infallible country on earth. I used to believe that because we were so free and prosperous, other nations, in their jealousy hated us enough to try and destroy us.

I used to think that if an idea was worthy enough to be disseminated through the mass media, and arrived before my eyes through an electronic device, then it had credibility. I used to believe in the inevitability of the establishment, that people in power had good intentions. I used to think that the government was here to protect me.

I used to believe that the people in power had the right idea, and with great power comes great responsibility to spread our way of life-- through force if necessary. I believed that we were living in a new era, an era where we were not bound to repeat the mistakes of history. An era of unlimited economic growth-- all you needed was a good credit score. An era where global threats made it necessary for each one of us to sacrifice a bit of personal liberty to ensure that freedom and democracy would survive. I believed it was the only patriotic thing to do.

Slowly, I came to realize that all was not well within the matrix. Certain truths I held to be inalienable were... alienated. Politicians who claimed to be conservatives spent money like drunken sailors. A Republican party who claimed to be against welfare and entitlements was welcoming legions of illegal immigrants into the country, showing no respect for the rule of law.

Law abiding American citizens were being subject to force and arrest without due process. Students were being tased in public universities for exercising their first amendment rights. Our government was pissing away an accumulated 100 years of good will in foreign relations. American jobs were leaving overseas while our trade deficit ballooned into the hundreds of billions.
...CONTINUED...

On the Separation of War Powers as Defined in the Constitution and Clarified in the Federalist Papers

matt — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:26:53 -0800

I want to address the purpose and rationale behind the separation of war powers in our Constitution. It seems Congress was given the power to declare/enact war and the President the power to manage/execute it. But why? What does it matter who declares war?

I'm not really concerned with the historical precedents of following or not following these distinctions, or semantics about what it means to declare war. For example, I've heard it said tacit approval of executively-initiated war through continued funding by Congress may be substituted for a formal declaration. That's an interesting idea, but it's not really relevant to WHY they divided the powers the way they did.

What of the wisdom and intent with which the founders assigned and separated these responsibilities?

We all know how vital to our system is the separation of powers. In federalist paper #47, James Madison said: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system."

He goes on to explain that checks and balances (overlap) between the branches is vitally important, but: " 'When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,' says he, 'there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.' "

Enacting war is, by definition, a legislative function. Executing it is an executive function. According to the framers, combining the two in any one person or body amounts to tyranny. The memory of tyranny's yoke was fresh for these men. They designed the Constitution to protect against its return to this land.
...CONTINUED...