Wright Is Right

So, I play this online political simulator, called The American Republic (That I highly recommend), and in it I am running for President. And while running for PResident i’ve written several mini “speeches” that I thought should go to waste. So I decided to put them together here and let you all see them.

I do not claim these too be good, because I wrote most of them very quickly and without proofread. However, I think I got a conservative message across. This has actually helped me a lot in organizing my thoughts and being able to vocalize my views and opinions. Anyway, here they are and since the campaign isn’t over more will be added later on. Each paragraph is a different speech.

• I would like to speak to you today about fiscal responsibility, something this country has been lacking. One of the largest problems facing America today is the national debt. Since World War I the national debt has steadily grown, along with government. If elected President I would work to reduce federal spending, shrink government and balance the budget. This will not only lessen the burden on the government, but the citizens themselves.

• I’m here because I am running for the Republican nomination for the Presidency. An issue that I believe is of great importance to the citizens of New Hampshire is taxes. I believe the tax system America is broken and needs to be fixed. That is why I support the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is a comprehensive tax reform that gets rid of taxes such as income tax, corporate taxes, etc… and replaces it with a simple national sales tax of about 23.5%. This keeps the money of hard working citizens in their possession.

• I’d like to speak to you today about common sense. Common sense has been lacking in Washington DC and I’d like to see it returned. Crooked, greedy politicians have taken and abused power and money that belongs to the states and citizens of this country. To quote former President Calvin Coolidge, “The people know the difference between pretense and reality. They want to be told the truth. They want to be trusted…The people want a government of common sense.” After 80 years those words still ring true today, folks. I’m here to tell you that I promise to bring back common sense to America with sound economical policy and prudent foreign policy. No more rash decisions that are hidden from the people.

• I want to talk to you about taxes. The federal government has gone out of control in its size, spending, and taxing. Instead of enlarging government like other people, I want to shrink government. And with this comes less spending which means fewer taxes for you. I want taxes to be less that you may have more. Who knows better to spend your hard earned money than yourself? The people in DC have become too accustomed to spending your money. It’s time to send them a message. It’s time to tell them that you’re sick and tired of it.

• It’s a great day to be an American, isn’t it? And it’s an even greater day to be a South Carolinian! I want to talk to you about my stances on social issues. I am a humble Christian and I thank God every day that I have the opportunities I have. Unfortunately, not everyone receive these opportunities. Every day cruel abortions are performed legally in these Unites States, even right here in South Carolina. I am an ardent opponent of abortion. I believe Roe v Wade should be repealed and it made constitutionally illegal because it is murder. If elected President I will do whatever I can to make this happen.

• I’m here to talk to you today about states’ rights. The federal government has been out of control. For too long it has usurped the power of the states given to them by the Constitution. People in Congress say they’re against big government, but they’re votes show otherwise. That is why actions speak louder than words. Words are meaningless unless backed up with action. If you look at my Senate voting record you will see that my actions speak loud and clear. I want less government and more states’ rights. And if I become President I will use action, not empty rhetoric, to bring back the ideals of our Founding Fathers. That’s why a vote for me is a vote for your right to govern yourself!

• In these times of high gas and oil prices we need to do more here at home to produce energy for ourselves. This can be done by allowing more offshore drilling. There is a great deal of oil off our coasts and in Alaska that has been blocked by those who think it will hurt the environment. Those people are wrong, however. With the advancements that have been made in drilling technology the effects on the environment would be minimal. And with this comes more American economic independence and lower prices for you, the citizens. Drilling at home also beings jobs to America. All this should and must be done and a vote for me is a step in the right direction!

• When it comes to learning about what the government is doing or what politicians are doing, you cannot always trust the media to report it like it is. Oftentimes the media is skewed and doesn’t report things fair and balanced. You should not trust everything you see and hear; rather you should do an investigation yourself of what is really happening. Even if you agree with what is being said it is not wise to take as complete fact. During these primaries there have been things said by people in the media that is not true. They try to put labels on me and call me the “conservative” candidate. Well, I’m here to tell you they’re wrong; I’m the common sense candidate. This primary isn’t about left or right, conservative or moderate, it’s about who you, the American citizens, believe is the best person for the job. And I hope my stances for smaller government, lower taxes, more states’ rights, and a balanced budget makes me the best candidate in your opinion.

• The Presidency is not a job to be taken lightly. And I know that there are plenty of qualified people out there do not choose to run, and I completely understand that. But I promise that I do not believe myself to be some outstanding person that is above everyone else. I come from a humble background with humble roots. I did not come to Washington DC as a Senator simply to serve my goals and interests, but because I wanted to serve and represent my state. And if elected President I promise I will not change. I will serve and represent America to the best of my ability. It was a great man who said, “It is a great advantage to the President, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man.” That man was former President, Calvin Coolidge. He understood that to have a greater than thou sense of being is not what a President should possess because it only causes smugness and poor judgment. Ladies and gentlemen, I know I am not a great man, but I believe I am a man of common sense who can put this country back on the path the Founding Fathers intended; a path of smaller government, fewer taxes, and states’ rights.

• In these times we cannot fix the economy with a larger federal government and more deficit spending. We must cut spending; shrink the federal government, and lower taxes. It has been proven time and time again throughout American history that when the government cuts spending and lowers taxes the markets recover faster and we will have a quick turnaround. It was done in the 1920’s under Harding and again in the 1980’s under Reagan. The opposite of this can be seen in the 1930’s under FDR. The government has no right to take more hard earned money than is necessary from you. Besides, the government doesn’t know how to spend your money better than you do. That is why if elected I will cut spending and lower taxes.

And as a bonus here’s a crappy political ad I made.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hwLvhUfsp4

Since the 2008 Presidential campaign various people have compared Obama to Lincoln (seen here and here).  I never agreed with these comparisons, but after some contemplation I believe there are some similarities that have not been mentioned. As always, this will take a mini-history lesson to get my point across.

Lincoln was elected to bring about change. His change was the abolition of slavery. But the circumstances surrounding Lincoln’s election are more complex than Obama’s. Lincoln won an electoral majority in a field of four candidates while receiving only approximately 40% of the popular vote. Obama won a slight majority of the popular vote with a clear electoral victory. Both of these came about, however, with a split opposition party and a marginally effective third party.

In the 1860 election the Democratic Party split during the convention and fielded a Southern, pro-slavery candidate, John C. Breckinridge, and a Northern, somewhat anti-slavery candidate, Stephen Douglas. The 4th Presidential candidate was John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party. With this large field Lincoln was able to win the North and the West. After Lincoln’s victory Southern states began to secede from the Union with South Carolina being the first.

It goes back farther than this, though. The Republican Party was only 6 years old. It was started in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion opponents. Their first Presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, came in second in the 1856 election and quickly established them as a major party in American politics. The Republican Party, however was not what it is today. At that time it was rather liberal and much more in favor of big central government. Now, not all Republicans of this period were in agreement, but that was the general tone of the party.

During this time period the Democratic Party was the party of conservatism and strict adherence to the Constitution. Their downfall was of course their support of slavery. At the time slavery was Constitutional so it was technically their right to participate in that practice.

Today the parties are opposite. The Democratic Party is now the liberal, progressive party whereas the Republican Party is conservative for the most part. The 2008 Presidential election marks a time in American history that may be looked at in the future as a turning point. Whether that’s a turn to the left or right has yet to be seen.

Now for the comparison. Lincoln was elected because the people believed he would abolish slavery. That’s a noble goal, but constitutionally there was no way to do that at the national level. It was a states’ rights issue that should have been dealt with at the state level. But the Northern, more liberal states, forced it upon the Southern, more conservative states. There is no evidence, however, that Lincoln ever planned on abolishing slavery without just cause, though he did want to stop the spread of slavery. Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the Union at all costs even if it meant trampling on the Constitution.

This type of action can be seen today with Obama and gay rights. Obama himself is personally against gay marriage but advocates for civil unions. This is only a difference in semantics from those liberals who voted for and support him. The liberals, though, will pressure Obama to legalize gay marriage nationally. And, once again, the same liberal states from Lincoln’s time are forcing this issue on the more conservative states that oppose it. Obama will not be doing this for such a noble cause as preserving the Union, but rather to please his lbieral supporters and help him politically.

Conservatives need to realize this now and do something to prevent it from happening again. Since Lincoln the national government has steadily grown in power while states rights have steadily shrunk. Some say it’s too late now to return to what the founding fathers wanted, but that is not my belief.

I would like to end with a quote from Thomas Jefferson that I believe fits this situation: “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.“

One of the best conservative Presidential duos, if not the best (It depends on how you view Bush Sr.) is Harding and Coolidge. Harding has been consistently viewed as the worst President in American history, but we all know that is thanks to a liberal bias. And although some of his criticism is justly due, but must of his much maligned record is due to the liberal bias that has dominated in the media and history.

Harding has been described as someone who cared more about the exposure than the job, someone who got his nomination in a “smoke filled back room.” And once he got into office he was nothing but a care free individual who blatantly disregarded prohibition and regularly partied.  But with a resurgence of conservative historians today, Harding is seen in a much clearer light.

Harding was a dark horse Senator from Ohio at the time of the convention and was certainly not a front runner going into it.  On the first ballot he came in 6th with General Leonard Wood and Governor Frank Lowden of Illinois vying for the nomination at the top.  On the next three ballots he stayed in 5th and then he moved up to 4th in the next ballot and so on until he miraculously jumped to first on the 9th ballot.  This was a sign that the nomination was close at hand, and it did so on the 10th ballot.  This was something that was unusual back then and completely unheard of under the primary system we have today!

After an endorsement of Senator Irvine Lenroot of Wisconsin by Harding, Lenroot’s nomination was brought before the convention.  Before they could vote, though, a delegate from Oregon brought forth Coolidge’s name and it was promptly seconded.  When they proceeded to a vote, there was a revolt among the delegates and Coolidge was nearly unanimously nominated as VP.  Whether they knew it or not, the convention had just made one of the most conservative tickets in American history.  This would set the stage the next eight years for a conservative government that would prove to be successful.

When the 1920 election rolled around it was a landslide victory for the Harding/Coolidge ticket and the Republicans.  Part of this was due to women who were able to vote for a President for the first time in history and overwhelmingly voted for Harding.  This was not only a triumph for conservatives, it was a great triumph for America.

Things were not easy for Harding, he had inherited a post-war recession from Wilson and war time taxes.  His solution for the recession? Cut taxes and let the market correct itself.  Within a short time the recession was over and the country was in high spirits.  Of course, Harding didn’t come up with this on his own.  The mastermind behind this free market plan was Harding’s Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon. Andrew Mellon made a living as a financier before he was Secretary, a successful financier at that.  During his time Mellon was consistently near the top of the wealthiest people in the nation.  But Mellon’s nomination didn’t come without consequence.  To secure his nomination, the Senate Republicans had to agree to allow Herbert Hoover pass as Commerce Secretary.  Since Hoover wouldn’t have become Commerce Secretary beforehand, this would have everlasting effects on the country that were then unfathomable.

Another aspect of Harding’s administration that would ultimately benefit the nation was his allowing Vice President Coolidge to sit on the cabinet meetings.  This kept Coolidge in the loop on issues and policies of the administration as well as acquaint himself with the cabinet.  This began a cordial relationship between Coolidge and Mellon that would ensure Mellon’s influence in governmental policy and secure his position as Secretary of Treasury.

With all this Harding had nothing to worry about.  America was in high spirits and the economy was booming.  As a conservative he had done his job to keep government small and spending low.  Wanting to meet and discuss the public, Harding decided to go on a cross-country “Voyage of Understanding.”  During this trek, though, Harding became ill.  At first he recovered and continued, but then the sickness returned and Harding died on August 23, 1923.

Note: This was started last night and finished today after school.  I think it’s evident when you get 2/3rds of the way through and it isn’t as coherent and doesn’t come to a conclusive end.

Sectionalism is still alive and well today in politics.  Whether you realize it or not is an oft used weapon by people to usually downplay their opponent.  This method might not be practiced by politicians who try to watch what they say in public, but their supporters use it.

I came upon this subject during one of my many mental ramblings.  I thought about antebellum politics and arguments i’ve had with liberals.  Y’see, I was raised in Southern Kentucky and I consider myself a Southerner.  I know Kentucky isn’t the most Southern place, but since the Civil War its culture has increasingly gravitated to that of the South.  This is in part due to a rejection of Northern/Republican policies and the backlash of the citizens due to atrocities committed during the Union’s occupation of the state under the military governorship of Stephen Burbridge.  The effects of this can be seen by the rise to prominence of ex-Confederate Kentuckians in the state and the Democratic stronghold that the state has been.  The latter of course is changing, but that’s more because of the realization of Kentuckians that the Republican party is not what it once was, nor is the Democratic party.

But, this is not the main reason why I call myself a Southerner.  I base this off of my belief that the right to leave the Union was Constitutional and that the CSA was right in seceding to protect the rights that they believed were being stepped on by the federal government.  Of course, I talked briefly about that in my previous post and will continue to do so.  Anyway, I guess you could call my a student of the Lost Cause.  My favorite general of the Civil War happens to be Jubal Early who is considered the leader of the Lost Cause movement.

I’ve gotten off subject, I apologize.  In numerous arguments or “debates” with liberals they repetedly resort to name calling and personal insults.  The most notable of these are “redneck” or “hillbilly.”  In their minds this explains everything: the reason why i’m conservative, have morals, and believe in a small government that should work for me.  They think i’m from an area of the United States that they believe is incompetent and unlearned.  Well, i’m here to tell you that they’re wrong.  The South may be more rural than places like the Northeast or the West Coast, but that doesn’t mean it’s any less capable.

But, why has this line of thought prevailed for nearly two centuries?  It’s because they still perceive this area of the United States the same way it was all that time ago; a frontier.  I’ve got news for them, though – It’s not.  The South is populated and developed.  The South has fully integrated back into the United States after the Civil War, it hasn’t held on dearly to its sectionalism, it got past that.  (A note to that, though, is that people in the South still call people from the North “yankees” but that doesn’t have to do with politics.)

I think this is an issue that goes under the radar with most people, but should be confronted by people from the South.  The Democrats argue that they’re the party of equality and then turn around and blast people for where they come from.

As I watch the movie Gods and Generals I am of course reminded of the age old struggle in the United States between states rights and a strong central government.  Writing this I find my mind wandering from subject to subject, unable to focus on one topic to write about now.   Because of this I think I will make this into a series.

I digress, but I feel I should give a background of where I am coming from with this.  My love of history, specifically the Civil War, came about 5 years ago.  From then on I have been on a mission to learn as much as I can about whatever interests me.

One of the first things I learned about the Civil War was that it was about states rights.  Some people out there will try to tell you it was about slavery, but that’s a load of garbage.  The reason the states seceded was because they felt their rights were going to be stomped on by the federal government.

Now, we all know how the Civil War ended and who won.  That’s another post.  But since then we’ve seen the central government steadily increase and states rights decrease.  Today, though, we’re finally starting to push back.

Several states recently have introduced and passed resolutions in their legislatures re-enforcing their soveriegnty in the United States.  This is, of course, exhilirating to me.  But, I believe this is just the first step in the right direction.  The states need to continue on this path and fight back unconstitutional big government programs.

This step is being taken by a few Republican governors, most notably Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) as well as one Democratic governor, but it isn’t being done by enough. More governors need to realize that much of this porkulus money that they are receiving comes with strings attach that eventually hurt the states.

I feel like i’ve rambled on enough for now.  I know this topic wasn’t focused on one topic and that’s probably because i’ve been writing it off and on for a week, but this will hopefully change.

NOTE:  This rambles on.  Expect that from now on.

Writing doesn’t come easy to me, so please bare with me when I don’t update often. I want to make quality posts, but that, unfortunately, takes time for me.

To waste time not writing what I want i’ll try to make a quick summary of what to expect from me. I’m very conservative and was raised that way. I am not a wimpy libertarian, I am completely conservative.

My political views started with my parents and I took it from there. I didn’t get into politics until about a year and a half ago. Before that I was just into history, specifically the Civil War. From there I branched out and found my way into politics. I like to think this gives me a better understanding of where America is now by knowing where we have been.

Anyway, I see myself maybe writing about some history here, but I don’t know. Sorry for those of you (or just the one of you) who are waiting I apologize again.

I don’t feel like writing out something brand new right now because its late and I haven’t had time to flesh an idea out, but here’s a paper a friend and I wrote for our Constitutional Government class.  I don’t think this was our final version, but it’s close enough.  It’s an argument that the Bill of rights is not needed.

———————————-

All citizens of these United States are entitled certain unalienable rights. Our nation’s Founding Fathers clearly stated this fact in the Declaration of Independence and made true their words in the Constitution. The individual right of Habeas Corpus, the outlawing of ex post facto laws, and the banning of religious tests, as well as other provisions, have stopped the government from taking advantage of people. With such protections already unmistakably stated in the Articles of the Constitution, what need is there for a Bill of Rights? In all reality, there is no need. And there is also no need for any further rights to be added. The true goal of the Constitution was to place limits on the government, and all the Bill of Rights does is complicate and muddle the document.

Throughout the Constitution the Founders laid out certain provisions that would protect all of the citizens of the United States. Ex post facto laws being banned protected citizens from being tried for something that was legal at the time of the offense. Habeas Corpus protects people from being held unlawfully, and trial by a jury allows one to have a panel of peers decide ones fate (constitution, 1787). It also protects from Bills of Attainder, which an act of legislation declares someone guilty without a trial, and from religious tests. To include a Bill of Rights to a document that has already very effectively laid out the rights of citizens and the limits of government is simply a pointless gesture by those who are too afraid of too much power in one groups hands to see the facts that are right in front of their faces: that there is no need for a Bill of Rights.

With such provisions already laid out in the main body of the Constitution, the idea of having a separate Bill of Rights is superfluous. This addition to an already finished document is just a restatement of provisions and protections that are already laid out in the first few Articles of the Constitution and those natural rights which all citizens are already entitled to. The Bill of Rights was simply an effort by the central government fearing Anti- Federalists to limit what they saw as a strong central power. It is full of unclear statements that people have adjusted to meet their own ends, and these are ends that were never supposed to be achieved through the use of the Constitution. Hamilton puts this best in his writing of the Federalist #84:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.”

What Hamilton is saying, essentially, is that to place a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would be an exercise in futility and an exercise that would be completely unnecessary for what the Constitution was set to do.

The goal of the Constitution is not to grant rights to citizens of the Unites States, but to limit power of the federal government. Knowing this, it is ludicrous to believe that additional individual rights should be added to the Constitution. And if additional rights were to be added, how far would lawmakers take it? Senator Obama would include a right to universal healthcare, as he stated in his October 7 presidential debate. The “general welfare” of the people is to be promoted, not provided by, the government. Or would they go as far as the UN and include such ridiculous rights as a right to vacation time (UN declaration of rights?)?. This would not only undermine the integrity of the Constitution, but also muddle and dilute the true intention of the Constitution as a limit on government. Such additions would by no means add more rights into the individuals bag of protections, because the Constitution has already provided for any right that may be wanted by any citizen.

To the Federalists, this matter should not have been one of such worry and debate. The concise provisions laid out in the Constitution and the unalienable rights all men have do more than enough to protect the individual from the whims of government. A Bill of Rights is merely a restatement of clear ideas that had already been declared. And any additions to this Bill of Rights simply aren’t plausible, because any and all new rights are already protected by what is already ours.