I’ve thought long and hard on the subject. But before we go there I would like to talk about the circumstances we find ourselves in today. I find it ironic that at a time when so much information is available to us that so many of us our blinded by preconceived notions, “common” knowledge, and complacency.
If we just step back and do are our own research using the documents that defined our nation; the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. Then with fresh eyes look at our nation today I think we may get a shock.
With just a little time invested we find that:
- Our Founders almost universally believed in Providence. Some were reluctant to be affiliated with any particular sect but that did not affect their belief in a God.
- They acknowledged His hand our winning a war against the super-power of its time Great Britain
- Their initial attempt at creating a union of the states did not work because the Federal government did not have enough power.
- The convention that was called to rewrite the Articles of Confederation to make it more functional turned into a convention that created a completely new document that we today call the U.S Constitution.
- The Federal government is a creation of the sovereign states and as such only has such powers as were granted it under the Constitution.
- A primary concern of many was that the new charter might give the central government too much power and that with that power it would eventual evolve into a national government. Checks were put in place to limit this possibility, especially the 9th and 10th amendments:
“9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So where are we today.
- Acknowledging a strong belief in God cause many to question your ability to govern.
- The Federal government is actively involved in removing God from public view.
- We have agencies such as the Department of Education that dictate to the states how they will educate their children using the power of money. Money that was collected from the citizens of the individual states and now redistributed based on compliance with Federal guidelines.
- We have a national government that seeks to tell us what we can do with items grown in our own home gardens, what to teach our children, what we can do with our lands, … . None of which by my reading falls into the powers delegated to the Federal government by the States
- We have a sitting supreme court judge who views our Constitution as obsolete
- We have had the appointment of officials to senior white house positions who revere the works of Mao (a man who was responsible for the peace time death of ~70 million of his citizens), were members of the communist party, the head of the treasury cheated on his taxes, … .
- Members of congress often leave their offices significantly better off in financial terms than when they were elected.
- The country is 16 trillion dollars in debt. Each citizen owes about $50K, each taxpayer about $138K.
- Defense spending is the third largest budget item ~700B. Medicare/Medicaid (#1) and Social Security (#2) are a combined = ~1.56T.
So help me understand, we are supposed to keep putting back the same people who contributed to getting us here. I’m sorry that makes no sense at all. When the Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency did anything magical happen. I don’t remember. Oh yah No Child Left Behind (NCLB), followed by Medicare Part D, the Patriot Act, The Aviation and Transportation Security Act – which created the TSA, … .
So who do we pick to be our nominee:
- If he is such a great leader and someone who wants to eliminate the department of education why did he co-sponsor NCLB? Yes President Bush wanted this but why did he not exert his considerable influence to sway the President.
- If he is such a staunch fiscal conservative why did he support Medicare Part D. A further expansion of the Federal government in healthcare and a program which has cost to date 100’s of billions of dollars? Money that we don’t have! Yes, is it operating more efficiently than planned but regardless it still spends money that we don’t have.
- He also brought Justice Ginsburg to President Clinton’s attention and helped shepherd her nomination through the Senate. Funny how well that has worked out. A former ACLU attorney, should we be surprised that she openly states that the US Constitution should not be used as a model because it is outdated. I guess the Senator did not see that coming. Can I ask how sound principles of government become outdated. Are the 10 commandments outdated as well?
I believe Senator Hatch no longer represents Utah to Washington. I believe he represents Washington to us. I agree completely with one of his competitors it is time to release him with a vote of thanks for a job well done (he has done good, especially in his first 2 or 3 terms) and give him emeritus status.
See my earlier post regarding Dan for more details. I’ve met Dan, talked with him one on one and I think he sincerely wants to do good. My concern is that he would be going to Washington without a solid grounding in the Constitution. His central message is that was able to pass pension and Medicare reform in Utah and that he wants to go to Washington to fix entitlements. Good message backed by experience except that for me all Federal entitlements need to put on a path that returns these programs to the States, where they belong. They are not within the charter given to the Federal government by the states.Therein lies the problem for me, Dan is definitely a problem solver but if he fixes programs that should not be run by the Federal government in the first place how does that address what I feel is one of our biggest biggest problems … a Federal government that is operating outside the bounds of its authority.
I really like Chris. In fact he is my second choice. In my view he is more Constitutionally grounded than Dan. I can feel his commitment to Constitutional government and he would be a defender of states rights. I can’t think of any reason to not support him except my view that I think Tim Aalders would be a better choice.
Tim is well informed on a broad range of issues and is grounded in the Constitution. He is not a politician (he’s never run for office – which is something he has in common with Senator Hatch). He is bold, he has passion and while I occasionally disagree with him I find that he actually takes the time to listen to my point of view. He has done talk radio for the last 2 1/2 years. During that time he has interviewed some of the leading political and economic thinkers as well as a broad range of politicians from Jimmy Carter and Rocky Anderson to Darryl Issa and Orrin Hatch. In total 130 congressmen and 64 Senators. He’s actually read the bills that congress passed before they passed them and pointed out problems with them before they became well known. He is not afraid to stand for truth. He will talk with anyone and will work both sides of the aisle to build coalitions to pass common sense legislation that will incrementally reduce the size and scope of the Federal government. He’s a problem solver grounded in the Constitution and is who I want to represent me in Washington.
I’ve watched as Tim has conversed with delegates who were committed supporters of Senator Hatch, Dan, and Chris. After grilling him with questions on immigrations, the debt, trade … . I’ve listened as they’ve said, “you are what we’ve been looking for, you have our support”. At convention I urge those who haven’t had a chance to talk with Tim to visit with him in his booth and make up their own mind.