Author Archives: William Way Jr.

Political Stance — Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

Previously, beginning March 15, 2013  I posted the Platform of the Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC) political initiative.  This is not an official political party as yet.  However, it is a series of positions which can unify the nation around sound public policy which a vast number of Americans are craving.

Below, in conjunction with the previous posts, is the first section of the statement of the Political Stance of this initiative.

Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC)

POLITICAL STANCE

1.0    Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves, and, to accept and be accountability for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

1.1    Expression and Communication

The Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

  • Favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.
  • Oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religious organization.  Recent legislation and ruling of the courts has been to restrict the use of government provided facilities and activities for the display of religious symbols.  Since government ought to act in absolute equity toward all citizens under its domain Constitutional Traditionalists find such restriction to be incorrect.  Governments ought to make available on an equitable basis opportunity for all religious organizations to present their symbolism.

Constitutional Traditionalists support in totality the Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution of the United State.  These amendments should be interpreted by government to provide the broadest expanse of liberty to the people, and consequently the greatest level of permissible authority to those levels of government most closely associated with the people.  Governments should act first in the general interest of the citizenry, yet never in the interest of special interests groups, or organizations.

1.2    Personal Privacy

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists specifically support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes.

Whereas, some individuals will be employed to administer the affairs of the greater society, and thus in position of public scrutiny, any personal privacy while operating as a public servant ought to be completely subject to such public scrutiny.

The excessive use of prescription and recreational drugs may lead an individual to unknowingly and uncontrollably violate the rights and safety of another.  Legal means may be used to protect society against such unintended consequences, however, ought not to be exercised to prevent the use thereof. (i.e.  The excessive use of alcohol may lead an individual to be incapable of safely operating a vehicle.  Law enforcement may legitimately protect society from the operation of such a vehicle, but ought not prevent the individual from consuming alcohol or apply punishment for its consumption).

1.3    Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, or immigration. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

Marriage has devolved from two threads of social interaction.  One thread is within the religious realm.  The alternate thread is within the political realm.  It is no longer practical that both realms dictate regulations regarding marriages.  Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support the idea that marriages for political alliances have become outmoded.  Therefore, marriages and their performances should be solely a matter of religious function.  Further, legal benefit and restriction associated with marriage ought to be dissolved, continuing with no strength under law.

1.4    Abortion

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists specifically believe that life begins at conception, acknowledging that any such human life, cannot by natural means, become anything other than a living human being which ultimately has and possesses all the natural liberties which are afforded to all human beings.  As such any action to deprive such living human being, following conception, of life is not an exercise of liberty but rather an act of violence, subject to accountability for such violence as though inflicted on a fully sentient living human being.

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists believe that government should be kept out of the matter with respect to the health of the mother and cases where rape and incest are undeniable factors, leaving the question in those cases to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5    Duty to Protect the Life of a Minor

Through the freedom to act independently persons of the age of capability procreate.  Children of such procreation should be considered minor until such age as they are able to be fully capable of sustaining their own lives.  Parents have a Duty to Protect the Life of a Minor.  Parents that fail to provide such protections are violating the minor’s ability to ultimately be at liberty to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists believe current ages of “majority” are appropriate.

 1.6    Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of physical harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law in specific circumstances.

Whereas, the accused are entitled to a speedy trial, the victims of wrongdoing are also entitled to a speedy trial.  All trials other than for capital punishment ought to be tried and concluded within one year of indictment.  All capital punishment trials should be tried and concluded within eighteen months of indictment.  These time-frames should include all appeals.

1.7   Self-Defense

The legitimate use of force is in personal defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression (violence). This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all laws at any level of government restricting the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

TLC Statement of Principles

On March 15, 2013 I posted the preamble to the Platform of the Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC) political initiative.  This is not an official political party as yet.  However, it is a series of positions which can unify the nation around sound public policy which a vast number of Americans are craving.

Below, in conjunction with the previous post, is a statement of principles for this initiative.

Platform of Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists (TLC)

Statement of Principles

It is essential to defend the rights of the individual over the expanding authority of government to establish preemptive regulation in most forms.

Individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the mutual right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments exist to provide specifically, but they ought not to violate the rights of any individual, as follows:

Protect:

(1) The right to life — Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists supports the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;

(2) The right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all attempts by government to make laws encouraging or restricting the establishment of any religious organization, or prohibiting the free exercise of the doctrines thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the publication of views (print or digital); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of  petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances; or by imposing censorship in any form upon an individual or organization expressing non-violent opposition to government acts; and

(3) The right to property — accordingly Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

  1. Oppose all government interference with private ownership of capital and property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and
  2. Oppose any form of government regulation of the financial management of private ownership of capital and property, and
  3. Support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, ought not violate individual rights, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.  People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives, liberty, and property for the benefit or choices of others.  They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders.  The most effective economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is Free Market Capitalism.

Free Market Capitalism is essential for the best ordered society.  Free Market Capitalism consists of absolute ownership and control of all resources of production being held in the hands of private individuals and groups of individuals in contract.

Political Platform of the TLC

Following is the “preamble” of the TLC (Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalits) Platform.  In many respects in resembles the Platform of the Libertarian Party, with areas of considerable departure.  This platform reflects the views of a broad spectrum of reasonable Americans.  It is not a “moderate” political position, although it expresses the rationale of people willing to be moderate in their evaluation of public policy.

Platform of

Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

(TLC)

Preamble

The traditional way in which the world has functioned best are conditions where all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

Respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free, mutually beneficial, and a potentially prosperous world.  Force, fraud, irresponsibility and a lack of accountability are detrimental to all human relationships.  By eliminating these factors, and, only through freedom can peace and prosperity be fully realized.

Each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest will welcome the diversity that freedom brings. Every member of society ought to be free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference and/or coercion from government or any authoritarian power (other than of their own will).

In keeping with the idea that each individual is entitled to the free exercise of Liberty, the idea that each individual is also fully accountable for the consequences of the exercise of that Liberty is a just and correct principle.  Accountability extends to enjoyment of health, happiness, and wealth gained. Yet, it also extends to restriction on the exercise of future freedoms, as a result of undisciplined use of personal Liberty.

The following paragraphs set forth basic principles, and the political stands flowing from those principles.

Statement of Principles

It is essential to defend the rights of the individual over the expanding authority of government to establish preemptive regulation in most forms.

Individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the mutual right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments exist to provide specifically, but they ought not to violate the rights of any individual, as follows:

Protect:

(1) The right to life — Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists supports the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others;

(2) The right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all attempts by government to make laws encouraging or restricting the establishment of any religious organization, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the publication of views (free press); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of  petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances; or by imposing censorship in any form; and

(3) The right to property — accordingly Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists

a) Oppose all government interference with private ownership of capital and property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and

b) Oppose any form of government regulation of the financial management of private ownership of capital and property, and

b) Support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, Traditional Libertarian Constitutionalists oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit or choices of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is Free Market Capitalism.

Free Market Capitalism is essential for the best ordered society.  Free Market Capitalism consists of absolute ownership and control of all resources of production being held in the hands of private individuals and groups of individuals in contract.

In future posts the entirety of this platform will be presented.  Watch for them, and feel free to share them or criticize them.

Preacher Goes Wild in Virginia Beach

First he endorses Rudy, now Pat Robertson is agreeing with liberal Democrats

Periodically there’s an eruption in Virginia Beach that catches us off guard. Much like a dormant volcano will occasionally demand attention, Pat Robertson grabs headlines by making an off–the–wall comment.

This doesn’t include predictable pronouncements regarding God’s wrath or the wages of sodomy. Everyone knows you can’t have a natural disaster without the Rev. Robertson piling on. What I’m referring to are non Jehovah–related eruptions.

Take Pat’s claim that he can leg press 2,000 lbs. — the equivalent of four Al Gore’s. Leg press involves letting a weighted sled slide down a 45–degree angle slope towards you. When your tibia and your femur reach a 90–degree angle, you contract your thigh muscles and push the sled back to the starting position.

There’s a YouTube video of Robertson “leg pressing” 1,000 lbs. Pat uses his hands to push his knees to full extension and the sled only comes down a few inches. I’ve seen my wife’s legs twitch more when I sneak into bed with cold hands. So it’s hardly a leg press and Pat’s certainly not moving a ton.

(There’s something about a leg press machine that invites hyperbole from political figures. Madeline Albright claims to have leg pressed 400 lbs., which is equally unlikely. Particularly when you consider they don’t even have a leg press machine at Minnieland Daycare, which is the only commercial establishment I can recall that would have equipment small enough to accommodate the diminutive former secretary of state.)

Robertson’s latest declaration is even more startling. In a New York Times interview, Pat calls for the legalization of marijuana, “I believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol. I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but… this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

I could not have been more surprised if he’d said he was leaving his wife for Madeline Albright.

This puts Roberson in some strange company beginning with Del. David Englin (D–People’s Republic of Alexandria) who introduced a bill in the Virginia General Assembly to study how much money the state would make if wacky tobbacky was sold in ABC stores.

Englin is pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and the founder of the “Progressive Caucus” in the Virginia House, while Robertson is; well he’s Pat Robertson. Still their herb views are remarkably concurrent. Both believe marijuana prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, is not working.

They have a point. Prohibition didn’t work in the 20’s and it doesn’t work today. Why do you think criminals are involved in growing marijuana and cocaine? Are they like liberal Democrats with their misty–eyed affinity for boutique farmers and 19th Century agriculture?

No, they’re in it for the gusher of money. This tidal wave of government–caused wealth is undermining the foundations of Mexico and much of South America.

Without the money that prohibition produces, much of the drug–related crime would disappear. The worst thing that ever happened to the Mafia — if you don’t count the last episode of the Sopranos — was passage of the 21st Amendment.

If there was ever a conflict that required an exit strategy the War on Drugs is it. Afghanistan looks like May 7, 1945 compared to what has been accomplished fighting drugs.

The main objection to legalization is “more people will use drugs.” Frankly, I don’t know how that could be possible. All the evidence shows anyone who wants drugs can get drugs. At least legalization will confine the damage to the willing.

What’s more, the same laws that apply to smokin’ would also apply to tokin’. The only difference would be when striding through the cloud of smoke that obscures the entrance to your local shopping mall, you would feel strangely mellow and eager to find the food court.

Legalization would not eliminate drug testing as a condition of employment or penalties for drug use while operating a vehicle. Naturally advertising would be banned under a government monopoly and the packaging would have suitably scary photos, similar to those on cigarette packages, to discourage use. My suggestion would be Willie Nelson’s latest booking photo or any crowd shot from a Grateful Dead concert.

For years I’ve been in favor of legalizing drugs and limiting the sales to the post office. The USPS needs the money and since many postal employees are already armed, security costs would be low. But Englin’s idea to sell blunts at the ABC would work just as well and the employees are accustomed to checking ID.

The real irony is that if legalization ever occurs it will have been a combination of a liberal Democrat and a conservative preacher who made it absolutely impossible for Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell to privatize ABC stores.

Morgan Horse’s Arse attempt to buggy whip Cameron

William Way, Jr.

Unfortunately the main stream and cable media sources continue to distort reality, both in word and intent. The latest effort to defame Kirk Cameron is a prime example. Both the host of his infamous interview, including an off subject discussion of homosexuality, and numerous media sources demonstrably misrepresent his response. But it has not only been the “yellow journalism” so common place today that has been the proverbial attack dogs. It is also such groups as GLAAD (Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) who have chosen to defame Mr. Cameron. (I find it odd that an anti-defamation organization would use defamation tactics to express their point of view.

Here is a comment by an online rag (Business Insider-The Wire), “Cameron was very clear that he felt homosexuality was not only sinful but ‘unnatural’ and ‘ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization’.” There are numerous other examples I could use, but for brevity I only use Business Insider for demonstration purposes.

If one listens to the entire interview dialogue, as cited on the “BI” website, it becomes clear to honest people that liberty was taken with Cameron’s comments, by the business rag. I will explain. Pier Morgan asked Cameron the question if homosexuality was a sin. Cameron carefully avoided that description emphasizing that in his view, as a christian, homosexuality was “unnatural” and “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization”.

Kirk Cameron

Kirk Cameron emphasized that it was not his place to judge, he simply explained his view. Yet, Piers and company immediately decided to claim that Cameron was directly calling homosexuality a sin. Again quoting the Business Insider, “he felt homosexuality was not only sinful but…”

Even if Kirk Cameron intended to convey that homosexuality was a sin, which the readers must decide for themselves, let’s put his only comment about sinfulness in perspective. Said Cameron, when Piers insisted that Kirk MUST categorize his comments as accusing people of being sinful, “Piers, you are speaking to a man who is Christian, and, I believe all of us are sinful.” He further clarifies that he is not being judgmental at all, but expressing that we all could be better people. That is a far reach from him saying that being gay is a sin. I am not suggesting it is not a sin, because that is not the issue. The issue is the blatant misrepresentation of Kirk Cameron by the media and special interest groups supported by the media.

Let’s go back to Mr. Cameron’s actual statement. “I think that it is unnatural. I think that it is detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” Morgan attacks Cameron on this point by misdirecting the conversation, a favorite tactic of the entertainment news in general. Piers running helter-skelter goes off the reservation when he tries to introduce legal actions into a discussion of Christian principle. Piers tries to focus the conversation on the point that seven states have approve civil unions (gay marriages), and by implication suggests that Christianity is errant for adhering to traditional Christian values.

In all candor, Piers Morgan was desperately trying to mix sour grapes and oranges. His conduct was weak by any professional interviewer standards, and he was completely rude by the standards of common decency.

Now, no good opinion piece would be worth writing without the author’s opinion.

I hold Kirk Cameron’s comments to be completely accurate. Homosexuality is the process of acting out sexual attraction between people of the same gender. Sexual attraction, as enjoyable, pleasant and appealing as it may be ultimately has one biological purpose. That purpose is procreation. It may be used as a game, a fantasy, as nothing more than a personal satisfaction through sexual release. Yet, none of those intents are in sync with the ultimate intent of procreation. Now, here is the clear undeniable fact, without significant unnatural alteration to the human body NO TWO PEOPLE of the same gender will ever procreate. That, my good readers, makes homosexuality, without all of its hype, a very unnatural act. Of that there is no debate.

If, and nobody should conclude by my remarks that I believe this will ever be the case, the whole of society turned to homosexuality than within a single generation humanity would cease to exist. That could be describe by any number of rational beings as extraordinarily destructive to the foundations of human civilization. Now, that is the extreme scenario. But, whereas the majority may only consist of combinations of the minorities, any flaw to the whole stems derives from a flaw to some of its minorities. So, although the scope of my example was in the extreme any portion thereof naturally extends to, in some measure of influence, a smaller segment. Sexuality, as a natural causation, is detrimentally effected by homosexuality.

Thus, the summation of my opinion is that homosexuality is simply dumb. It flows from nothing but self-centeredness, and ends with self-indulgence in a self and socially destructive result. Or in the conclusion of Piers Morgan speaking about his own child advising him that they were gay, “That’s great, if it makes you happy.”

There is a very real difference between gaiety and being happy. Should Mr. Morgan desire to know the difference I will be more than willing to provide him with a dictionary. In the interim, as Christian scripture says “Adam fell that man might be, and man is that he might have joy”. Joy and happy go hand in hand. Gaiety (being gay) is not implied, except for those choosing to attempt to redefine Christianity according to the dictates of their own conduct, of which none of us are entitled.

Government Sponsored Extreme Sexuality Sports

I know more students that watch collegiate sports than actually play or played collegiate sports. They have been treated far more fairly than some of the athletes themselves. Therefore I propose we appeal to Jonathan Swift for a modest proposal…

I have taken mild liberty to adjust Mr. Swift’s proposal to accommodate our present day circumstances. Correspondingly, lacking Swift’s flair to the rhetorical I offer this synopsis with greater brevity.

A Modern Modest Proposal

This is a Modern Modest Proposal for preventing the students in America from being a burden on themselves, their families, and for making them beneficial to the public.

It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through our great universities. These gifted student, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, and apply themselves to their studies, are forced to employ all their time in the risks of of unprotected gaming, some to the extent of sell themselves to drunkards and reprobates.

Thus, it is only reasonable that a solicitous proposal, submitted by fluke, should be more seriously evaluated and applied universally throughout our universities.

Specifically, I draw my attention to the desperate circumstances of collegiate athletes. I momentarily attend to the specific sport of “football”. Upon gaining entrance to a prestigious university these active sportsmen are outfitted with rigorous protective gear equal to the cost of satisfactory annual contraceptive. I.e. football protection for one year is nearly equivalent in cost to a full year of “protection” for a highly active sexual athlete at the same university.

It is true that the university pays for the extent of protective gear issued to its footballers. In the most recent decade many universities have bent to offer heterosexual sporting in some prominent sports programs. The boys on grid iron appear to be advantaged over the less funded sport of “Extreme Sexuality”. The question naturally is raised as to whether or not such disparity in funding common sports programs is truly equitable. Given that Extreme Sexuality is a far more popular sport among collegiate student (and perhaps the professorships as well) the only reasonable initial response would be that inequity surely does exist.

Serious consequences, in most cases, on the football field are protected against. Injuries and “sidelining” of players is far less frequent than would be expected with such aggressive encounters. The main reason being that protective gear is provided to athletes. The same cannot be said for the more popular sport of Extreme Sexuality, which incidentally the university offers no protective measures. This again, for emphasis, appears categorically unjust. Given the choice of participating in either football, a sport of repetitively attempting to push a ball forward, or Extremely Sexuality I will leave to the reader’s imagination as to which a preponderance of students and faculty would choose.

Why then is such a sport, and the protection of the participants therein, thrown recklessly aside while football is funded so heavily. This is Another seeming dilemma of inequity. Something ought to be done. Just by fluke, an informed student of Georgetown testified before the prestigious although highly political House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. The essence of her testimony was rather simple, and appeared to answer the terrible inequity of protection provided in university sports programs. Her answer was void of malice and subject to rational discourse, rather than the tawdry commentary of liberal talk shows. She concluded that the government should fund Extreme Sexuality sporting events by providing subsidized protection.

My initial reaction was to wonder “why”, but upon closer examination I discovered the disparities which exist (as noted above). Ultimately I came to this alternate Modern Modest Proposal.

Athletes in collegiate sports programs, like football, reach that level of capability through years of training and practice. They hone both their bodies and mental stamina to prepare themselves for the extreme challenges of repeatedly being nailed flat on their backs usually on the semi-hard surface of the cold ground. Secondly, when functioning as a well oiled machine these sportsmen draw vast numbers of spectators. The Spectators pay good money to watch these sporting events. They cheer wildly when someone scores. Other sports where athletes are nailed by a well oiled machine could be treated equitably. You can see where my Modern Modest Proposal is headed I presume.

Perhaps universities would or should entertain (pun intended) the idea of publicizing Extreme Sexuality programs as an offset cost for these programs. This would allow for proper protection for the athletes involved in the sports. By publicizing and establishing quality observation arenas universities could charge high prices for a ready and willing supply of spectators. Seats directly at ringside could draw in excess of $250 per event. With the less exhausting effort (even appealing aspect) involved in the actual Extreme Sexuality competition a player could reasonably participate in three spectator events weekly without seriously effecting their ability to apply good study habits. Iron man events would require a higher level and frequency of commitment, but risk of injury would be offset by the protective gear provided by the University. National championships in Extreme Sexuality competitions would draw millions of dollars annually to participating universities.

The challenge for universities would not be achieving that funding requisite for the protective gear but finding the best competitors from the high school ranks. This would require years of training. Parents would presumably prepare their promising offspring beginning as early as age nine. Further, the investment by parents of promising young folks would also be minimal. In fact, in some communities, there would be a ready supply of adults willing to be perverted away from their business activities to “pay to play” in the raising-up of such future athletes.

Photo: AP

For less wealthy families, with skilled children trained at their father’s tender hands, the income from Casual Sexuality through the advanced techniques of Extreme Sexuality could easily augment family revenue in excess of five digit figures annually.

The social value of such a Modern Modest Proposal cannot be measured. The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee would no longer need to address this serious flaw in our culture. Why? Because there would no longer be a need, even among the poorest of students, for federal assistance with sexual activities. Unfortunately, former House member Anthony Wiener is no longer in office to model and champion such a progressive policy.

This proposal obviously will meet with the usual opposition from those forces asserting moral values for society. I suspect that their first argument will be that The Modern Modest Proposal, may possibly not be so modest afterall.

Mitt, Answer the Question! Please

William Way, Jr.

Tonight I saw it again. Its getting old and tiring. No, it is down right tedious.

The moderator’s question was in essences “Each candidate. What misconception is out there about you that you would like corrected?”

All the candidates, except Mitt Romney chose to answer the question. Mitt Romney, who couldn’t get re-elected governor of Taxachusetts, yet felt he has carte blanche to attack Rick Santorum for not getting re-elected as a senator, decided he was above answering the question. His response when nudged by the moderator to answer what was asked responded with “You ask the question you want, and I’ll answer the question I want!”

Did I get caught AGAIN?

I have watched all the debates twice now and that has been Mitt Romney’s response in each of them. “I’ll answer what I want to answer!” Folks, haven’t we had enough of this arrogance from Barack Obama? Do we really want another president that believes he is better than the people he is paid to serve? I think not.

“I’m better than everyone else on this stage, and, I can answer whatever question I choose to” is simply getting old. That is what people intuitively know about Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney believes he is better than the American people, and we all sense it whenever he speaks.

Mitt Romney portrays himself consistently as someone who is better than all others. If you doubt me, objectively watch any comment that he makes.

Here are a couple of examples. He keeps touting his great success with the 2002 Winter Olympics. He boasts about how that he managed them and rescued the whole thing. What Romney fails to include is that Olympic Committee had already identified the problems, released the incompetent people, and established a plan to move forward. Mitt was brought in because of his squeaky clean image. He simply ran the projector for those who had already created the proper movie.

There is another element about Romney that people should be aware of. Romney brags about all of his experience in private sector business. Let’s look at just one of bragging points; Staples. He had virtually nothing to do with the management of Staples. The concept of centralized inexpensive office supplies was the idea of someone entirely different from Romney. He only shoved money at the idea. Romney had nothing to do with the actual management. Many of his other ventures were exactly the same. All he did was push investors money toward a project.

I am not saying that Romney was wrong for throwing money at the problem. You, the reader, can decide that issue. What I am saying straight forward is the Mitt Romney praises himself for dumping cash on a problem and then immediately, singularly for political purposes, trash talks Barack Obama for dumping federal dollars on the problems with the economy. Mitt Romney cannot distinctively see the difference between the goose and the gander.

Mister O'Wonderful

Mister O'Wonderful

I have a question or two for Mitt. Why should I believe you will be any different than Barack Obama? Why should his past behavior be a predictor of his future behavior, YET, your past behavior should not be a predictor for your future behavior?

I challenge any Republican, not simply the conservative one, but every Republican. What do I challenge? I challenge you to listen closely to what Romney says, and you will find that most of his comments are hollow rhetoric. He doesn’t answer the questions ask of him and when he boasts he highly over inflates the facts. When looking at the people he pastes on his cat-who-ate-the-canary grin, and then in the background stabs at his opponents as viciously as Barack Obama.

I have leveled some criticisms of Mitt Romney. In the middle of them I have repeatedly encouraged you to evaluate him through observation. If you do, you will find that I am correct. Better yet, I encourage any journalist or investigative reporter worth their hire to challenge Romney to definitively prove his self inflating rhetoric. Hold his feet to burn coals of the truth…and he will melt like ice cycle in the August sun.

Mitt’s False Religious Credentials

Mitt Romney has been working overtime to establish himself as a conservative Republican. The evidence suggest he is far from being a conservative.

His credentials regarding social issues are weak. He has taken the moderate to liberal stance on abortion, same sex marriages, healthcare, and immigration. Granted he has tried to get folks to turn a blind eye to his past, but it remains there anyway. On these issues, where the government ought not to have any control, Mitt Romney has been and remains an advocate of government socialism.

He has attempted to established himself as a fiscal conservative. Research into his political experience (Taxachussetts governor) strongly suggests he is a moderate at heart. But there is something more telling about his “I’m superior to you, and you should obey me” mentality. We have read ad infinitum about his displays of arrogance. (“I like to fire people” comes to mind.)

But it goes deeper still. An honest assessment by anyone will reveal that Romney boasts about his great management skills. Yet, such an investigation will also reveal that Romney actually does not have any more management experience than either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. He has bought and paid for an image and message that is false. Mitt Romney was not a manager. He admitted that in the debates (“I didn’t manage those accounts, they were in blind trust”. Which by the way is on record as being a false statement). Br. Mitt as he is affectionately referred to by his worshipers in Utah believe he had significant management experience with the Utah Olympics. I will be a little charitable with him. He was at the helm when the Olympics played out. Yet, people should realize that the disgraced prior management team had been already ousted and those in control had already establish and implemented a plan to correct those flaws with the Olympics. When Mitt arrived he did not save the day. He simply ran a set of plays that were already in motion. Let’s not give him “great” credit for “saving the Olympics.

There is more. At one time Burger King was number two in national restaurant chains. They floundered. Mitt invested money into them yet they still are below number two. Mitt Romney is not the great manager his campaign would have you all believe.

Now, one more reality check. Along with his investments in some companies that he did not manage Mitt had some success. However, he also had substantial failures with several investments, just like Obama. Obama has stolen money from taxpayers to invest in companies like two or three solar companies that have had failures, so far. His public investments in car companies has not yielded real success either. Romney would like contrast his successes with Obama’s failures. But there is a very serious question that deserves an answer.

Mitt Romney would have us all believe he is a strong conservative. That is false, but let’s follow the trend. Romney is using a prominent, yet errant, view of Mormons to portray his conservative image. Whether folks think about it or not they recognize that Mormon Country (Utah and Idaho) have held the role of being the most conservative states in the union. That image is transposed onto anyone that is Mormon. Fortunately, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not take political stances on most issues. But, if one were to examine a large sector of public Officials in Utah, at least, they will see a group of very moderate if not liberal elites; former Governor Mike Leavitt, former Governor Jon Huntsman, the current Governor,and several leaders in the state legislature. The Republican Party routinely elects its leadership from among the moderate thinkers in the party.

Most of these people are the ones aligned with Mitt Romney’s campaign. They are the epitome of establishment Republicans.

Yet, the public perception persist that Mitt Romney, the Mormon, is conservative. Why, because people won’t study him. Also people fail to have an accurate view of the Mormon population. It is perceived as very conservative because of the strong adherence to the traditional views of family, homosexuality, abortion, et al. Fiscally, Utah is among the states with some of the most liberal laws in existence.

Mitt Romney enjoys that perception of the Mormonism because it assist him in establishing himself among conservative nationwide, by association. The perception of Mitt Romney as anyone close to conservative is false. I personally would like Mitt to come clean with the FACT that he only wants to be president, just like Obama. He has little desire to do what is either best or even good for America.

William Way, Jr.

Eight down and 42 to go

William Way, Jr.

Eight State Consolidated Vote Tally
(Iowa, NH, SC, FL, NV, CO, Minnesota, Missouri)

Candidate Total in 8 States Total Percent
Buddy Roemer 967 0.03%
Christopher Hill 108 0.00%
Fred Karger 345 0.01%
Gary Johnson 1,588 0.05%
Herman Cain 12,352 0.41%
Jeff Lawman 119 0.00%
Jon Huntsman 50,939 1.68%
Keith Drummond 162 0.01%
Kevin Rubash 250 0.01%
Michael Meehan 364 0.01%
Michele Bachmann 12,539 0.41%
Mitt Romney 1,181,857 38.87%
Newt Gingrich 837,142 27.53%

No preference 10,075 0.33%
Other 1,354 0.04%
Rick Perry 26,086 0.86%
Rick Santorum 568,499 18.70%
Ron Paul 335,922 11.05%

Total 3,040,668 100.00%

Eight State Consolidated Vote Tally
(Iowa, NH, SC, FL, NV, CO, Minnesota, Missouri)
Only for the remaining four candidates (Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Romey).

Mitt Romney 1,181,857 40.43%

Newt Gingrich 837,142 28.64%

Rick Santorum 568,499 19.45%
Ron Paul 335,922 11.49%
Total 2,923,420 100.00%

The Real Number for Republicans

William Way, Jr.

There are some interesting hard numbers developing in the Republican battle for the presidency.

Out of the 2,966,000 ballots cast so far in the primaries and caucuses the Republican candidates ought to be concerned. None of the candidates are showing a propensity to generate sufficient support within the party to be able to beat Obama.

For instance, Mitt Romney is pulling 38.88% of the republican vote. Additionally, he has now lost contests in four states. More precisely Romney has attracted 1,181,857 votes.

Yes, there are a lot of states still in play but the reality is that Mitt’s best showing was only 16,486 votes in New Hampshire, or only 50% showing. Yes, he drew more votes in Florida, but to what end? By outspending his opponents by enormous percentages he garnered only 46% of the vote. To beat Obama he is going to need to convert over 83% of the votes which went to other Republicans. Without that base Mitt Romney cannot defeat Obama.

The numbers are not looking very good for Mitt Romney

What is even more worrisome within the Romney fright night repeat of 2008 is that most of the political insiders have been shouting his name as the inevitable poster child for Republicans against Obama, particularly since his Florida victory. His showing in Minnesota should have been quite strong for the inevitable nominee. Yet, he attracted less than 17% of the vote. Even without campaigning seriously he should have drawn better than third place.

Rick Santorum

To date Rick Santorum has been punishing Romney in four states. Newt won one, and Romney has displayed two victories. Rick Santorum has spent less than than both front men of the political money laundering scam being perpetrated on the public by the “Super Pacs”.

The career ambition chasers in the Republican field simply are not getting the message being delivered by the people. Santorum comes across sincere, authentic and intelligent. Mitt smirks at the people every time he looks in the camera. I have concluded that he has a flagellation problem with all those chicken **** grins he has for the media. Newt is a great guy. He is clearly the smartest man in the room. However, every time he enters the room he has a new idea. America is looking for a candidate with values AND focus. I’m not going to go off on Ron Paul because reasonable people have long ago discarded him as a serious candidate.

Despite what the money diggers in DC say about Romney, the Republican Nomination is now Rick Santorum’s to loose. He has a clear cogent concise message. The people like it, even when Mitt spends millions to tell us to think otherwise.

In America, as nowhere else on Earth, we get the government we deserve. After four years of Obama the hard numbers are suggesting that the people are saying emphatically “We deserve better”.

Anarchy of the Tea Party

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips presumed to lecture Newt Gingrich about campaign tactics. Just for the record Newt knew what he was doing and spreading the message espoused by the “Tea Party” before Phillips could read the tea leaves.

Judson’s uninformed and inaccurate statements are reflective of the Tea Party failure, the one presumably initiated by the “Tea Party Nation founder”.

The Tea Party, by all informed sources, is in serious disarray. Whereas in 2010 it was a voice of reason among the shrill noise of traditional campaign hash, today is is sliding into oblivion. It is at the edge of the cliff of obscurity, and when Mitt Romney has finished pound his thousand dollar nails in the lid, the Tea Party will be a trash heap at the bottom of a very high overlook.

Here is why. The Tea Party’s initial advocates wanted it to be a populace movement. They deliberately wanted to TP “not be governed”. They wanted it to be a people’s movement. That was a major mistake, as reality of history has proven over and over and over.

Populace movements have NEVER succeeded in filling a long term role in governing.

The Tea has sunk to the bottom of the bay and lost all its flavor. It is now a worthless commodity only fit for the fish. Petty in-fighting among Tea Party “leaders” has cost the movement any credibility it once had. The fools should have actually organized to be a structured entity. Anarchism defeats itself more quickly than any other form of government; and the Tea Party was an anarchy. Now it is becoming history.

Yes, there are a few mouths still braying at the distant lightening, like a jackass not wise enough to get out of the middle of the pasture, but in reality they are only a drowned out noise when the storm actually arrives.

If the advocates of Tea Party principles truly want to be a viable and meaningful voice in the long-term political dialogue than they must, contrary to initial good intentions, decide to develop a functioning structure. They must decide that they are in fact a serious contender for national attention with an organized message and voice to deliver it. There are simply too many fools braying incoherently for the Tea Party to be taken seriously.

If the TP advocates fail to organize, and do so quickly, than rest assured that men like Mitt Romney and Karl Rove will continue to compromise the values for which The Tea Party adherents believe in.

Many may disagree with me. However, as opposed to the arguments which they may raise I hold a trump card. That card is time. Simply watch and wait, the failure which I predict will inevitably come to pass…unless there are major changes.

The Scumbags Need to Resign; Yes, you, Brian Ross

The jokes are all over the internet. They usually begin with “A Woman Scorned”. The story is about Newt Gingrich’s second wife and her “revelations to destroy a career.”

You all have heard the media wagging their collective tongues over this sensationalism. It is tawdry, unprofessional, and down right tacky.

Brian Ross at ABC is credited with this yellow journalism. I personally attribute part of it to the Romney Wrecking Crews that have systematically sought this entire campaign cycle to secretly release stories about other Republicans to destroy them, note that that is my sole opinion. Brian Ross is having his name bandied about like he is some kind of professional journalist that has proven himself. Tonight, listening to Bill O’Reilly praise his character on FOX was actually nauseating. Brian Ross has proven himself to be capable of nothing more than senationalistic National Inquire style reporting,  except for the fact that would be an  insult to the National Inquirer.

Newt’s second wife, THE VICTIM, made a statement that Newt told her of an ongoing six year affair. Her comment appeared to have some merit and substance…right up until Ross decided to encourage her to make it sound tawdry. At his prompting, she added the accusation that Newt wanted some form of a sexually oriented threesome. That is not where she went until driven to it by by a journalistic dropout intent on creating some type of porn story for his fledgling network news.

The way the initial conversation went down is that she said Newt accused her of wanting him all to herself, and that Callista was OK with him doing what he wanted. Only in the sleazy mindset of a pervert, apparently what Ross possesses, would someone twist that well beyond what it could actually mean. I don’t know, as I wasn’t there. But perhaps the Gingriches could not work out a relationship that allowed for his broad expanse of interests into many many areas of life. I choose to believe that his entire personality was simply much bigger than her personality could keep pace with. he had interests that far surpassed her interest and it led to some type of personality conflict.

He handled the situation poorly. He turned to a woman that was incapable of understanding the broad vision which his personality was driven by. That was dumb. That was inappropriate. it was shameful behavior. Nothing justifies infidelity. However, to suggest that tawdriness was the nature of his behavior is purely speculative, and deceitful. Shame on you for your lack of character and professionalism Brian Ross. You should be fired for your conduct now, with respect to your reporting on the conduct of others that happened such a long time ago.

This hate mongering for the sake of a headline is the most despicable of performances, especially coming from of  someone who desires to be considered  a real journalist today.

Now, I have made my disgust at Brian Ross more than clear. Yet, I want to expand a little further still.. I wish to comment on Mitt Romney.

Mitt was a high level ecclesiastical leader within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He knows, or should know, very well that perhaps behind a testimony of Jesus Christ and all that that conveys is the concept of repentance. Mitt Romney has sat in councils of his Church where that he was required to render decisions about the worthiness of other Church members. He knows that the key concept behind those worthiness decisions is one based upon an individuals desire and intent to bring their lives in conformance with the doctrine of Jesus Christ. He know, or should know, that such repentance is a very personal issue and speak of an individual’s course for each person. He should know that when a person’s repentance is complete that they are entitled to full fellowship and acceptance. Lastly, he knows that when his role as a leader with Church rights to make those decisions has been removed, he is not entitled to know or judge the completeness of another’s level of repentance.

Now, why is this significant? Because, according to Mitt’s knowledge and commitment to his religious community he has a far greater obligation to assist others, and to not judge them from the standpoint of any role as an elected official he may fill…even president. Yet, when those who support him debase Newt Gingrich or other people’s character he remains silent, supposing that his silence somehow absolves him of accountability. The moment that the media began to attack Newt Gingrich, after he confessed his “sins” and had indicated that he had made amends to God than he , MITT ROMNEY, should have stood firmly in defense of Newt Gingrich. But Mitt chose to shuffle his feet with his head down in embarrassment, too afraid to stand for what was right and good (at least that is how I see it).

Now, in conclusion, I have no personal knowledge of what Newt Gingrich has done in terms of sin or evil, or even illegality. I likewise lack any knowledge of Mitt Romney’s personal dealings, other than a couple of deceptions conveyed to me by one of his relatives. I am completely unqualified to judge them. However, I can see and comprehend hypocrisy when I see it rear it’s ugly head, and with this story about Newt Gingrich I see hypocrisy in both Brian Ross and Mitt Romney, and it totally disgusts me.

For disclosure the author is an actively involved member of Mitt Romney’s Church affiliation.

Ron Paul Foreign/Military Policy Debate

A debate between supporters of Ron Paul and those who do not support him is be run on http://wwwjr.wordpress.com/first-debate-ron-pauls-foreignmilitary-policy-position/.

The debate format is a written version similar to an oral collegiate debate; Two affirmative arguments, two negative arguments followed by two affirmative and negative rebuttals. The arguments are quick easy reads giving you the perspective of how strong supporters of Ron Paul present their case vs how strong opponents present their case.

The RESOLUTION being debated is “Ron Paul should receive voter support due to his foreign/military relations position, as presented by himself during 2011 and 2012.”

The debate is in the initial stages so join in now. Link to http://wwwjr.wordpress.com to see the debate structure.

What Iowa Really Means for Mitt Romney

The whole day I have been hearing errant interpretations of what the Romney victory in Iowa means. Some fellow boggers and some of the more well-known pundits have been stress that the eight votes means a whole lot of something. One of the major guys out there even stated those eight votes as “significant, significant” victory for Romney. He was wrong.

Iowa was an absolute disaster for Romney, and Mitt’s persona on the small screen has that written all over it. FOX News and their squad of unfair and off-balanced entertainers have over emphasized Mitt’s presence all day long. The story is about Santorum and ron paul. yet, those two get slim mention. Even the other Texan got better cover by the FOX hounds than Rick Santorum. Why? Because FOX is out to sell airtime and push the entrenched Republican Guard’s agenda (but that is another story for another day).

In Iowa, Mitt Romney received 8 votes more than the clear victor, Rick Santorum. “Wait a minute” you may argue. “Eight votes or a million votes, a win is a win.” What I said was that he got only 8 votes more than the victor. Let me try to explain with an example. Years ago my alma mater was playing a basketball game at home against the Air Force Academy. It was like an NBA team playing with a little league squad. AFA was getting beat-up mercilessly. It seemed like they went for ten minutes straight (that is a long time in basketball) without scoring once. The turnovers were almost routine. Then one of their players caught a break and sank a three pointer from the corner. The stands exploded with cheers. All 20,000 fans in the seats were screaming and shouting, congratulating AFA. Even I was one my feet applauding them.

Here is the point of that tale. My school won the game by a huge margin. But, AFA was the victor. Everyone saw their stamina and determination. We watched the hard work on their part. We weren’t cheering for the underdog, as the media might have claimed. We all were praising, with justification, a valiant effort (using the basics) to the very end. The Air Force Academy stood for something much greater than a simple hash mark in the “win column.” They worked on what they believed. They were the victors over themselves and over the easy way out; griping, complaining, pointing fingers, cheating, throwing elbows, etc.

In Iowa Risk Santorum was the victor! Mitt Romney simply got more points on the board.

The caucuses in Iowa were a disaster for Romney. He was slated to be the heir apparent. He was lazy and mean spirited. Rick Santorum hit the three point corner shot.

Romney won in 17 counties, by slim margins, Ron Paul won in 17 counties. Rick Santorum won in 63 counties. The broad base of support in Iowa is clear. Santorum had it, Romney didn’t. But it goes much deeper than that, much deeper. The final tally shows that Romney actually had less success in 2012 than he did in 2008.

Mitt wanted, spurred on by the deceptive and backroom gambling of Karl Rove, to slam home the idea that he was the next anointed one (replacing Barack Obama). He lied at the outset of the caucuses saying he wouldn’t campaign in Iowa, only to flip-flop again by pouring millions of dollars in hate advertising into the state. As a member of the “Say Anything Party” Romney desperately needed Iowa to demonstrate his inevitability as the Republican candidate. That desperation showed in his coordinated hate mongering. If you watched his speech Tuesday night it was more than obvious how stunned he was, and off balance.

Mitt Romney talks a good game. The rich fat cats in the expensive seats swear he is the man. But, as Iowa demonstrated, they still must share the stadium with those pesky fans. Br. Mitt, talk is cheap, and you couldn’t make the sale. You have bought yourself a corn dog while spilling your coke on your nice dress slacks. Here is some sound advice. Those quality three-pointers from the corner outweigh your foul shots every time. The fans (voters) just chat with each other while you are at the foul line, and pay close attention when a passionate player (Rick Santorum) goes into the corner.

Mitt Romney knows he was iced in Iowa, and he is now panicking about both New Hampshire and South Carolina. His talking empty-head, Karl Rove, may be spouting platitudes, but “panic” is the watch word. Romney must win, and win hugely, in New Hampshire. If he does not than we can all look forward to hearing his “I’m getting behind the Republican nominee” speech.

That’s The Way I See It.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

William Way, Jr.

Proposed Amendment

To

The Constitution of The United States of America

Amendment 28

National Consumption Tax

1. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on end-user consumption of all goods and service, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, in an amount not to exceed 14% of such consumption.
3. The Congress shall delegate to the states authority to collect and transfer such consumption taxes to the federal treasury on a uniform, routine and customary schedule.
4. The Congress shall exempt from taxation all individual medical expenses, excepting those medical expenses articulated by legislation passed in each house of Congress by no less than a two-thirds majority of the fully membership of each house.
5. The Congress shall not impose any other form of taxation on the States, the People, or industries of the United States of America.
6. The Congress shall adopt a biennial budget.

  • a. The budget shall be adopted by the fifteenth day of October in each odd numbered year.
  • b. The budget for appropriations shall not exceed the total projected revenues of the United States of America.
  • c. All appropriations shall be accounted for within a single budget for all authorized federal expenditures.

7. This amendment shall take effect 270 days following ratification, by popular vote, within the states, if such ratification has occurred prior to the completion of ten years following submission to the states by the Congress.

 

Related: Seven point for a successful economy.  Twenty-Two Minutes Per Year – That’s All I Ask