The 28th Amendment

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States".

There are plenty of bloggers, news people and big government supporters out there who are bending over backwards to keep this amendment from ever becoming a reality. One argument is this,

“Ever since the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act in 1995 Congress has been answerable to the same civil rights and equal employment regulations that pertain to private businesses. Other alleged disparities, such as those having to do with Congressional retirement provisions and health care coverage, are misrepresented above as well.”

One huge hole in the argument is that the CAA was never written to protect the American voter from the disparities created by the elitist culture that has grown in our nation’s capital. This paragraph from the introduction of the text of the law says it all;

“The CAA protects over 30,000 employees of the Legislative Branch, including employees of the House of Representatives and the Senate (both Washington, D.C. and state district office staff ); the Architect of the Capitol; the U.S. Capitol Police; the Capitol Guide Service; the Congressional Budget Office; the Office of the Attending Physician; and the Office of Compliance. Certain provisions of the CAA also apply to the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly the General Accounting Office) and to the Library of Congress.”

As you can see, the CCA was nothing more than an additional bandage to bolster the bureaucracy that keeps government bloated. The 13 or so laws that were included in the act did little to prevent the problem of members of congress being able to treat themselves as royalty. Consider these recent examples:

Members of Congress do not have to go through the same TSA grope down you and I do. Is this something you consider fair and just?

Members of Congress are not included in the provisions and mandates imposed on everyone else through ObamaCare. They have faster and better access to medical care.

Those are only two examples, but they are glaring ones. How anyone who respects our founding fathers can consider the proposed amendment to be unneeded is beyond me.

Right now the Obama Administration is claiming that a simple majority in the Senate can eliminate the requirement for a US President to be a natural born citizen. This is exactly the kind of mindset the proposed amendment will be dealing with. When we have extremely high ranking government official totally ignorant of the US Constitution and its concurrent amendments, we have big trouble on the horizon. And if the American voter will not deal with them, we have to have laws that do.

Real Immigration Reform

The Obama Justice Department seems to believe that their mandate is to support not only illegal immigration, but to prosecute any border agent who successfully stops an incursion. They have now thumbed their nose at the GOP controlled congress for attempting to investigate Obama-aided gun running to the Mexican cartels.

Again, the US Constitution has become an inconvenient document that the Obama Administration has chosen to ignore. This question has to be asked, how long will the American voter allow the poison of political correctness to leech away their freedoms and their prosperity? We really do not need more immigration control bills, what we need is the vigorous enforcement of the laws already in place to protect our border.

Unfortunately, not one member of our congress seems to have the courage to do that. So what do we do? When congress fails to enact one of more of the 18 enumerated powers given to it through the Constitution, it is left to the states to pick up the slack. A few states have done so and have been promptly sued by Washington for their trouble. What the papers will not tell you is that every state enacting immigration reform has experienced a positive impact on their budgets.

 I wager if you take the time to call them and ask that question you will get some form of boilerplate evasion. My reception was considerably colder. The Democrats and their media supporters see every illegal as a potential vote…regardless of what the constitution or what federal immigration law says. The sad part is that too many Republicans see them as cheap labor, far cheaper than even the minimum wage teenagers their constituents have as children. Even more unfortunate is that our Washington administration sees them as eventual soldiers for the revolution.

Read the text of this 2007 bill and then ask your representative why such a bill would bankrupt the country. You see, that is what my fellow Republicans told me it would do. The Democrats consider it a violation of the Constitution, yet I cannot find any text or context that gives our protections to those who violate our border. What I do see is that the bankruptcy is already happening because the current administration is actively waging a legislative war against this country.

Immigration Bill Draft Summary

Bob Beers, Assembly District 21, Nevada, 2007

SECTION 1:  TITLE.

• Creates the Nevada Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2009.

SECTION 2:  FINDINGS.

• Legislative statement of intent that failure to enforce immigration law harms the safety and welfare of citizens and legal residents of Nevada.
• Declaration that the State has a compelling interest in insuring that government agencies and employers fully cooperate in the compliance with and enforcement of federal immigration law.

SECTION 3:  FELONY TRANSPORTATION & HARBORING OF AN ILLEGAL ALIEN.

• Replicates in state law the federal statute making it a crime to move, transport, or attempt to transport persons known to be illegal aliens within Nevada.
• Replicates in state law the federal statute making it a crime to conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection in any place within the State persons known to be illegal aliens.
• Provides an exception for the transportation or harboring of illegal aliens if it’s associated with the provision of any benefit guaranteed to illegal aliens by federal law, or regulated public health services provided by a private charity with private funds.

SECTION 4:  LAWFUL PRESENCE TEST FOR DRIVERS LICENSE & ID CARD

  APPLICANTS.

• Restricts eligibility for state driver’s licenses and identity cards to citizens, nationals, and legal immigrants. 
• Allows legally present nonimmigrants to be issued temporary licenses and ID cards valid only for the period for which the nonimmigrant has been admitted to the U.S.
• Provides an exception for schools IDs, as long as the school ID clearly states that the document is only valid for identification purposes at the institution where it was issued.

SECTION 5:  VERIFICATION OF CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS OF

  PERSONS ARRESTED.

• Requires jail officials to attempt to verify the citizenship or immigration status of any person arrested or confined through the federal Law Enforcement Support Center operated by U.S. DHS.
• Requires foreign nationals who have not been lawfully admitted to the U.S. to be deemed a flight risk for bond determination purposes.

SECTION 6:  DEFINITIONS.

• Defines the terms “status verification system”, “public employer”, “subcontractor” and “unauthorized alien” for the purposes of Section 7.

SECTION 7:  VERIFICATION OF WORK AUTHORIZATION BY PUBLIC EMPLOYERS,

  CONTRACTORS & SUBCONTRACTORS.

• Requires all public employers to register and participate in one of two federally implemented verification systems to verify federal employment authorization of new employees.
• Prohibits public employers from contracting for services with contractors who do not participate in a verification system to verify the status of all new employees after July 1, 2008.
• Prohibits contractors or subcontractors from entering into contracts with public employers unless they participate in a verification system to verify the status of all new employees after July 1, 2008.
• States that it’s a discriminatory practice for an employing entity to discharge a US citizen or legal resident alien while retaining an illegal alien, hired after July 1, 2008, in a comparable job as the discharged employee. In order for such a discharge to be considered a violation of this section, the employer had to know, or reasonably should have known, that the retained employee was illegal.
• Any employer using a status verification system to verify the employment eligibility of all new hires after July 1, 2008 is exempt from any liability arising from this section.
• No cause of action for violating this section can be brought against an employer, unless it arises from the provisions of this section.

SECTION 8:  VERIFICATION OF LAWFUL IMMIGRATION STATUS FOR STATE &

  LOCAL PUBLIC BENEFITS.

• Requires all state and local agencies to verify lawful presence of applicants for state or local public benefits using the federal SAVE system.
• Provides exceptions for certain emergency and humanitarian public services designated by the U.S. Attorney General.

SECTION 9:  WITHHOLDING OF INCOME TAX FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORSWITHOUT VALID SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

• Requires individual independent contractors to show their contracting entity documentation to verify employment authorization, or the contracting entity must withhold federal income tax at the top marginal income tax rate.
• Any contracting entity who fails to do this is liable for the taxes that should have been withheld.
• This section applies only to business relationships between individual independent contractors and contracting entities, not employees and employers.

SECTION 10:  COOPERATIVE IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT BY STATE & LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

• Authorizes the State Attorney General to negotiate a memo of understanding between Nevada and the Department of Justice or Homeland Security regarding enforcement of federal immigration law in Nevada.
• Prohibits any local government in this state from passing an ordinance or law restricting the ability of a law enforcement officer or government employee to communicate or cooperate with federal officials regarding the immigration status of anyone in the state.
• Prohibits any government official or entity in the state from restricting another official, entity, or public employee in the state from sending or receiving information regarding the immigration status of any individual to or from the Department of Homeland Security.
• Establishes a private right of action for any individual in this state to file for a writ of mandamus against any local or state government agency not cooperating with the provisions of this section.

SECTION 11:  GENERAL PROHIBITION ON ELIGIBILITY OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

   FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION BENEFITS.

• Prohibits individuals not lawfully present in the country from receiving postsecondary education benefits or resident tuition.
• Provides an exception per the provisions of Section 13.
• States that the provisions of this section do not apply to any student enrolled in a college for the 2006-2007 school year or any prior year who received resident tuition per current law.

SECTION 12:  ESTABLISHING A FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS IDENTIFICATION UNIT

   AT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

• Contingent upon funding, DPS shall establish a Fraudulent Documents Identification Unit.

SECTION 13:  SPECIFIC PROHIBITION ON ELIGIBILITY OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

   FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION BENEFITS.

• Allows a person without legal citizen status to enroll in an institution of higher education and receive resident tuition, only if they have:

Ø  Graduated from a state high school;

Ø  Resided in the state with a parent or legal guardian while attending a state high school for at least two years before graduation;

Ø  Met the admissions requirements of the college;

Ø  Provided the college with a copy of a filed and pending application or petition for legal status; or

Ø  Provided the college with an affidavit that they will file such an application as soon as they are eligible, but in no case later than one year from the date that a process for legalization is available to them;

Ø  If such an affidavit is filed, they have to provide the college with a copy of a filed and pending application or petition for legal status no later than one year from the date that a process for legalization became available to them.

Ø  Provided documentation of legal immigrant status.

• No student shall have to meet additional conditions for resident tuition who qualified for resident tuition per the provisions of a previous version of this law during the 2006-2007 school year or any prior year.

SECTION 14:  EFFECTIVE DATE.

• Effective date – October 1, 2009.

Free Speech

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The second clause in the First Amendment has no title like the Establishment Clause, but in spite of that, this short string of six words has garnered more print, debate and utter hostility than any other portion of our constitution.

“or abridging the freedom of speech,”

Again, we see that this is not specifically spelled out as a right, but as a restriction on what the government can impose upon its citizens. Again there is no specification as to where or when such free speech is to be exercised and there is no specification as to content. There is also no mention as to whether or not this applies to individuals, groups or even corporation. George Carlin’s prohibited television words are not mentioned and there is no difference specified in the differences of speech whether they be religious, political, romantic or inflammatory. The clause simply says that Congress cannot make a law that restricts free speech. Abridging means to restrict or prohibit. Therefore, every law that the United States Congress has proposed and/or enacted since December 15, 1791, has been done so in violation of this clause. link

Now some may bring up the old argument of the changing times and the need for the government to ensure security. Those points have merit for the purpose of debate, but they mean nothing in the face of original intent and the laws governing grammar. Because of the British Crown’s sedition laws, the framers of our constitution made sure that the newly formed congress could not become an imperialistic body. If they were brought forth in time to see how that body has metastasized, I imagine several members of congress would be challenged to a duel.

We have to remember, what someone says means nothing until those words are acted upon. If Van Jones were given a soap box so he could harangue the folks in the public square about the glories of communism, which would be his right to do so, he has every right to not be prohibited from speaking. He does not, however, have a right to expect anyone to stand there and listen. The clause says nothing about the audience of that speech. Nowhere in the constitution does that document mandate or even mention that an issuer of an opinion has to be heard. Listening, by extension contains the same personal freedom as speaking. The government and the speaker have no right to expect an attentive audience, except where the government is the audience. The men who wrote our constitution were not fools. When we get to that clause we will look into that part in more detail.

This all means that by extension every time some Washington functionary with an inflated sense of their own importance attempts to shut down speech or censor speech through some form of law, that law being used is wrong. Congress, the highest law-making entity in this country is forbidden from making such a law. However, the 10^th amendment muddies these waters because in that amendment everything not specifically placed into the hands of Congress is left to the states. And that means that by a strict reading of the language in the first amendment, the states can restrict speech. This is why it is so important that we the people pay attention as to who we elect into government office. This is also why is it so important to pay attention to the lessons of history and to understand the principles under which we live.

Being Religious does not Remove Free Speech Rights

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Back when the newly freed states were attempting to ratify the constitution, the delegates ran into a wall of opposition due to a lack of adequate guarantees for what are now known as civil liberties. What the Bill of Rights did was add those protections. On September 25, 1789 it was submitted to the states for ratification and adopted, after long and lively debate (including a few fistfights) adopted on December 15, 1791.

If you check out the Wikipedia article on the First Amendment, link, you will find several citations as to how debate, including lawsuits has shaped how the amendment is defined today. Does that mean the definition is correct? Not necessarily. Since the late 18^th century the English language has not just evolved, it has mutated to the point where sentence structure, grammar and even the meaning of words needs to be understood in that era’s vernacular in order to know the real intent of the men who ratified and adopted our constitution. So let’s look at amendment number one, clause number one:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

This is the first part of the sentence. That’s right; the first amendment to the US Constitution is a single sentence, written in proper English grammar of the time. Many call it the “establishment clause” because of that word as regarding religion. Nowhere is any specific religion called out and nowhere does it specify where “the free exercise of” may or may not be carried out, yet today it not just considered improper, many consider given any type of religious speech in a government facility, whether it be indoors or out, criminal. I would like to see where in this clause exists any reason for such an interpretation.

Rather than a Bill of Rights, the series of amendments really should be called the List of Restrictions on Government Power. You have to remember, the framers of the constitution were the same men involved in agreeing to and signing the Declaration of Independence. They remembered vividly living under a very oppressive regime with its own state religion, the Church of England. The last thing desired was to have the state dictating what a worshiper did with regard to their religious practice, and yet that is where we are today. In essence, those who use the first amendment to tell someone, “You can’t do that, this is government property,” are saying they approved of what King George did back in the 1700’s.

It is very easy to poke fun at people who freely express their devotion, but it is also very wrong. Those who wish for a law to curtail peaceful religious express are also wishing for the constitution to be violated. Every school or university that has prohibited religious expression has violated this amendment, in spite of what some Supreme Court justices have written. Simply being a life time appointment to wear a black robe does not automatically make one infallible. Read the words. Where does it say that the government can restrict that form of expression in this clause? It does not. Rather, this clause restricts what Congress, the lawmaking body, can do. Also the government cannot prohibit someone, or any number of ones to freely express their religion, whatever it is, wherever they desire to do so, regardless of who is offended. Again, does this clause say anything else? No, it does not.

Now, further on within the body of the constitution, some limits were applied. They had to be to allow for a burgeoning growth in this country. These limits fall within the prevue of state law such as permits for building rental and so on. Those limits, as long as they did not tread on the First Amendment, were lawful and in many ways proper. Our problems as a nation began when political agendas became more important than the documents underlying our nation’s foundation.

Currently there is a debate over whether or not corporations should enjoy the same free speech rights as individuals. The only reason that debate has risen is because corporations tend to favor a pro-business form of government, which the Democrat Party is not. Surprisingly enough, most of the media outlets in favor of denying corporations free speech rights are in and of themselves corporations made up of individuals who shelter behind the free speech clause of the amendment. Not surprising is the fact that they cannot see the glaring hypocrisy in their stance.

What makes that debate germane to this column is that it also includes incorporated churches. Again, we have to go back to the words. Contrary to what some have said, corporate law did exist back in the 18^th century. Our second President, John Adams practiced law and wrote extensively on it. He was also involved in the framing of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If the men involved in the ratification of the Constitution had been concerned about the evils of granting corporations or churches free speech rights there would be mention of it.

By the way, it is the height of arrogance to assume that they had no idea how this country would evolve, or that they were less intelligent than we are today. If you are one who feels that way, attempt to pass the 8^th grade achievement test for the 1800’s, link.

Many say that the United States of America is a Christian country. Sorry, even from the days of the pilgrims that was not exactly accurate. People forget the Indians. When the constitution was ratified, the wording of the establishment clause prohibited this country from having any state religion, regardless of deity even though many of the principles of Christianity are embedded within our law. It is as improper to declare this country Christian as it is to prohibit group prayer in the quad of the local high school. Simply because an individual, or group of individuals, or a corporation of individuals identifies with a religion they still retain the same free speech rights the nonreligious do. It’s in the Constitution.

A Conservative Manifesto

Since the shellacking the liberals received at the hands of both the GOP and the Tea Party last November, the media has been bulging with stories, articles and columns regarding the potential electoral disaster facing the Democrats in the upcoming 2012 election cycle. Even the Las Vegas Sun, a liberal rag in my home town,  has carried a column by the New York Times offering a serious warning to the Democrat establishment that they ignore the Tea Party at their own peril. The one overriding point missing from all of these and practically every other piece written by the Mainstream Media since the days of George Bush Senior is, just what a conservative is.

From MSNBC on, every liberal elite outlet sniffs with distain at the very mention of the word “conservative”. They sip their overpriced chardonnay as they nibble truffle-enhanced Pâté de foie gras while declaring in their upper class accents that conservatism is out of step with everyday America. It is not surprising that even now these pseudo intellectuals consider the elections in the Democrat strongholds of Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts to be aberrations. The likes of Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Lawrence O’Donnel and Norah O’Donnell will never get it. Miss O’Donnell even went so far as to verbally attack a young girl for being in line at a Sarah Palin book signing. You can check this link if it is still active: http://friskaliberal.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/msnbc-attacks-young-girl-at-sarah-palin-book-signing/  

The left is falling apart. Their anger and hatred, and frankly, their fear of a conservative ascendancy have boiled over. Many consider the Tea Party Movement to be the chief villain in this drama.

One sad part of all this is that far too many in the GOP leadership also don’t get it. All too often I hear the same dismissive tones coming from Republican leadership with regard to the Tea Party movement as I do from the Democrats, and not only that, just like the Democrats many so-called leaders within the GOP actively work to remove their own colleagues from office if that colleague will not work with them in corruption. How do I know this? I was one of those targeted for being “too honest”; check out my profile. During the past election cycle we had the Republicans for Reid, a group formed simply because Sharon Angle did the unforgivable by trouncing their anointed candidate, past state party chair Sue Lowden. Now the good Assemblywoman is a household name and not necessarily in a good way. That is how sad things have gotten.

What today’s conservatives need is a manifesto, a list of those characteristics and policies that define what a conservative is. Simply being against taxes is not enough. I know of too many in my own party who use that simplistic measurement and then blithely vote to continue stealing from the taxpayer by raising fees for no other cause than their own enrichment.

The first item in this new Conservative Manifesto should be Constitutional Honesty. Right now the liberal elite are outraged over a correct decision by the Supreme Court to remove the McCain-Feingold stricture on corporations being able to donate to political races and an even more recent decision to give corporations the same free speech rights as individuals. Unfortunately, enough Republicans are also outraged to be worrisome. Whether you chose to accept it or not, corporations are made up of people. Simply because they band together they should not have to give up their civil rights.

The Constitution was written by men (advised by a number of very strong women) who knew first hand what it felt like to live under the very type of system the liberal elite would love to see enacted in this country. Again, whether or not they like it, the constitution gives us the right to own any type of firearm we choose. Nowhere does it limit that choice. If you don’t like it, use the established route to change the Constitution. If that is thought to be too much trouble, too bad.

That document gives us the right to voice nonviolent opinion, worship wherever we choose, even if it is in a school or city hall, disagree with the President, even if he is a mulatto, and to prosper in our business, even if we become wealthy doing so. What it does not do is allow us to lie, cheat and steal our way to wealth or power, and that is where the real conservatives are separated from the phonies. NeoCon is another term for phony. Bush Jr was a neocon just like Daddy Bush. Reagan was a true conservative. A NeoCon believes corruption is good as long as their frat brothers are involved. A true conservative will blow the whistle because it is the right thing to do.

The second item is US Sovereignty. If you want to send a liberal right off the deep end, suggest that the United States of America adopt the same type of rules considered a matter of course by most countries (several of which the liberal considers far more enlightened than the US); a national language and mandatory expulsion of illegal aliens. Sweden does this and because they are socialist they are completely accepted by the mushy-brained set. (Mushy-Brained means liberal. The terms are interchangeable)

Let US sovereignty even be mentioned by a US representative and that poor sap is being hung in media effigy that day. By the way, were you aware that Mexico is currently constructing a wall on its southern border? Where is the liberal outrage?

We have a right to secure borders just as our southern neighbor does, and we have a right to our own language, US English. Legal citizens of the US have the right to expect to be treated better than lawbreakers. Citizens of this country are the ones paying the bills and as the bill-payer they deserve to have the first place in the line. Of course, this attitude is considered to be hateful and racist by the liberal elite. The attitude of the true conservative toward them should be this, if you don’t like it; leave. If you want to stay, obey the law. By the way, the US has never shot someone attempting to leave our country legally.

Third is the sanctity of innocent life. Science today has reached the point where any honest biologist would have to admit that an unborn child in the womb of a human mother is an identifiably separate human life. Sure, it may be entirely dependant upon the mother for continued existence and growth, but that in no way invalidates the growing life’s individuality. This is simple, proven science and yet it is another unbending hot button for the liberal. The news is replete with stories of protesters crowding together outside the gate of a prison holding candlelight vigils on the eve of the execution of a convicted murderer. There is no consideration with these people as to how vile the committed crime may have been. These 10 watt intellects are filled with compassion for the perceived victim of the state over and above any innocent life. However, this group has nothing to say about the thousands executed by Islamic states. They could not care any less about the millions executed by every communist dictator since Lenin, nor do they breathe a single syllable of regret for any of the children murdered by the assorted Middle Eastern suicide-killers. What is the greatest hypocrisy of all, you ask? They celebrate every time an unborn child is murdered by a physician while that physician is busy violating his or her Hippocratic Oath. To quote Wilkow, “Hypocrisy is like flatulence, you never notice your own.”

An important note on this; abortion is currently legal. It may be horribly, morally wrong, but it is still legal. That being said, the entire pro-abortion stance is hypocritical on its face and the hypocrisy continues to its core. An innocent human life is taken in every case and that has to be admitted. A true conservative would agree. A true conservative defends innocent life, whether it be in the womb or not. Politics is not given a single place in this decision. If that defense costs a position of power, so be it. If it costs you money, too bad, what is right is right and any argument to the contrary is wrong on its face. Some prices are simply too high to pay.

Fourth is the economy. That’s right; a real conservative does not place money at the pinnacle, which is the NeoCon stance. A real conservative understands that certain principles are more important than the accumulation of wealth. With that being said, the economy holds a solid place within the top 5 because a real conservative also understands that in order to be a productive citizen, people need real jobs, not welfare. The liberal elite consider most employers to be the enemy, unless that employer happens to employ them or gives huge campaign contributions to avowed socialists like Obama, Pelosi or Reid. Common sense dictates that in order to stimulate an economy, the best thing a government can do is get out of the way and allow business to grow. The second best thing is to allow competition to be the rule within the marketplace. Of course there is a problem here; not one honest thinker can ever ascribe common sense to the liberal mind. History has more examples of the liberal experiment destroying an economy than it has of wars causing death. All right, some hyperbole there, but the point stands. Liberalism has never grown an economy…ever, and yet the mushy-brained continue to insist that their way will work…this time. I do hope you all know the definition of insanity.

Fifth on this list, is personal freedom. The liberal believes that such a right only applies to them and those groups they champion: terrorists, communists, Marxists, baby killers, mass murderers, traitors and so on. No, personal freedom belongs to every legal citizen within this country. It is not and should not be a right extended to anyone who belongs to or supports a group whose aim is to harm those citizens, nor should it be extended to those who have broken our immigration laws. For far too long our freedoms have been chipped away by Washington elites who believe they know better how to lead our lives than we do. Because of this belief we have become smothered by a blanket of laws that have no reason for existing other than to give careers to people incapable of competing in the free market. Every single one of the laws governing what kind of car you can drive, laws telling you to dress like a Star Wars Storm Trooper before you can ride a bike, laws telling you what kind of food you can eat, and so on into infinity, should be abolished in favor of one simple statute; if you do something stupid to yourself, you are responsible for any costs you incur. If your stupidity causes harm to someone else, you pay through the nose, regardless your position or power; if this causes some lawyers to get an honest job…again, too bad.

Sixth is intellectual honesty. The discussion of global warming has its place in the conservative doctrine just as do many other scientific and educational issues. A real conservative agrees with real science. We know that Darwinism, Creationism and Intelligent Design, as far as science is concerned, are all theories. If you call evolution a scientific fact, you are wrong. Evolution, the way it is taught, can no more be proven by science than the existence of God. If you disagree, show me the missing link. Science is not faith and faith is not science. A real conservative is able to live with both. Global warming has not only not been proven, but it has been revealed as false far too many times for the honest to ignore. Global temperatures have actually gone down since the high point in the early 1990’s and several highly reputable climatologists believe that the earth may be entering another cooling period similar to that which caused the mini ice age back in Napoleon’s day. But the validation of this theory could cost Al Gore money, and the liberal elite cannot let that happen. They even have the gall to call those who disabuse the global warming nonsense as “unpatriotic”. What they cannot do is dispute the educational and research records of the men and women brave enough to publish scientific truth.

Seventh is extremism. As currently defined, most Americans are not extremists; the liberal elite are excluded from that list, “most Americans” because by constitutional definition a liberal elitist cannot be a real American. Their own extremism makes true active citizenship impossible. The ongoing knock against the Tea Party Movement is that of extremism, and to continue the honesty, the movement has welcomed some extremists with open arms. The only extreme the true conservative should embrace is an extreme love and respect for the founding documents of this country, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United State of America, and for the ideals that brought those documents into being. That is what defines a real American.