Enough questions have come my way that I decided to write about the meaning of federalism. When the Founding Fathers did their research and used their own skills and experience to write the Constitution of the United States of America they did so after a great deal of debate.
Federalism was the way to go . . . Democracy managed by a Republic form of government was the most secure, for both the nation and her citizens with a small federal government and the bulk of the responsibility falling to each state.
Federalism is the appropriate distribution of power between federal and state government, concentrating on a smaller federal government and larger state governments. For instance, the EPA would cease to exist, as would dozens of other agencies, under a true federalist government. Oh wow, then we could drill for oil in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming and free ourselves of dependence on foreign oil. Wow, guess the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing after all, natch. Anyway, the people of the states would elect, within their own states, the representatives they feel would best represent the needs of their state and themselves. This is what we're in the process of doing right now with political conventions, primaries and elections.
Conservation, energy independence and civil rights all legislated under the the Constitution of the United States, which is the overriding authority, would be put into law accordingly.
In other words, it would be return a government of the people, by the people and for the people as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, under the protective umbrella of the republic.
If you look at the candidates we have today, pull away from the ones promoting big federal government and support the ones who are honestly promoting the formula of the Founding Fathers. Small federal government, big state government and HUGE personal responsibility.
Refer back to Sean Hannity's Top 10 Items for Victory and learn the great value of freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. It is candidates who espouse these things that we must support.
Several nights ago I was given the "opportunity" to go listen to a man who has his own radio show, and no, you do not know him, teach about: The value of capitalism, the value of America as the founding fathers structured her, the value of the Constitution, the value of personal responsibility and pursuit of dreams, knowledge is power . . . all things I wholeheartedly believe in and yet he taught these principles through an arrogant, obnoxious, aggressive manner. At one point when I challenged him on the fact that he said gas prices were not too high, resulting in a spirited conversation which ended up with him calling my gentle, strong, loving, hard-working husband, the man I would give my life for, a spoiled brat. Alvin wasn't even there. I literally felt heat overwhelm me, head to toe, as I contemplated a number of ways of standing up in front of that room of people and giving the guy a sock in the jaw. He's never met Alvin, the best man I have ever known, and yet he felt qualified to call him such a thing because we think gas prices are too high. Yeah, this guy owns an oil company. He verbally attacked me, a person who believes in all that he believes in for America, and yet never, on God's green earth, will I ever have anything to do with Rick Koerber or his group. A man who feels the need to teach in such a manner is not someone I want to have anything to do with.
How does this tie into federalism . . . he believes as I do, small federal government and huge personal responsibility for this freedom we enjoy, one that is being eroded on a daily basis because a large portion of the American population cannot even see them being eroded. My concern is this, if people who believe as I do are labeled crackpots (no, I'm not going to mention which groups) or are arrogant, obnoxious s.o.b.'s then how are we ever to turn this nation around.
And we must turn her around. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. America is the best country in the world and the freedoms assured us by the founding fathers as well as the liberties granted unto us by a loving God are ones that need to be taken back. The government of the United States of America has become so entitled it has ceased to function as it was created to do. We're being regulated into communism, sadly. Barack Obama has jumped on that train and is shoveling coal in as fast as he can . . . he wishes America to cease, completely. What wishes to create in her stead is terrifying to me.
So what are the answers? What are we, as Americans, supposed to do? Well, all I can do is repeat what I've written before:
Federalism was the way to go . . . Democracy managed by a Republic form of government was the most secure, for both the nation and her citizens with a small federal government and the bulk of the responsibility falling to each state.
Federalism is the appropriate distribution of power between federal and state government, concentrating on a smaller federal government and larger state governments. For instance, the EPA would cease to exist, as would dozens of other agencies, under a true federalist government. Oh wow, then we could drill for oil in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming and free ourselves of dependence on foreign oil. Wow, guess the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing after all, natch. Anyway, the people of the states would elect, within their own states, the representatives they feel would best represent the needs of their state and themselves. This is what we're in the process of doing right now with political conventions, primaries and elections.
Conservation, energy independence and civil rights all legislated under the the Constitution of the United States, which is the overriding authority, would be put into law accordingly.
In other words, it would be return a government of the people, by the people and for the people as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, under the protective umbrella of the republic.
If you look at the candidates we have today, pull away from the ones promoting big federal government and support the ones who are honestly promoting the formula of the Founding Fathers. Small federal government, big state government and HUGE personal responsibility.
Refer back to Sean Hannity's Top 10 Items for Victory and learn the great value of freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. It is candidates who espouse these things that we must support.
Several nights ago I was given the "opportunity" to go listen to a man who has his own radio show, and no, you do not know him, teach about: The value of capitalism, the value of America as the founding fathers structured her, the value of the Constitution, the value of personal responsibility and pursuit of dreams, knowledge is power . . . all things I wholeheartedly believe in and yet he taught these principles through an arrogant, obnoxious, aggressive manner. At one point when I challenged him on the fact that he said gas prices were not too high, resulting in a spirited conversation which ended up with him calling my gentle, strong, loving, hard-working husband, the man I would give my life for, a spoiled brat. Alvin wasn't even there. I literally felt heat overwhelm me, head to toe, as I contemplated a number of ways of standing up in front of that room of people and giving the guy a sock in the jaw. He's never met Alvin, the best man I have ever known, and yet he felt qualified to call him such a thing because we think gas prices are too high. Yeah, this guy owns an oil company. He verbally attacked me, a person who believes in all that he believes in for America, and yet never, on God's green earth, will I ever have anything to do with Rick Koerber or his group. A man who feels the need to teach in such a manner is not someone I want to have anything to do with.
How does this tie into federalism . . . he believes as I do, small federal government and huge personal responsibility for this freedom we enjoy, one that is being eroded on a daily basis because a large portion of the American population cannot even see them being eroded. My concern is this, if people who believe as I do are labeled crackpots (no, I'm not going to mention which groups) or are arrogant, obnoxious s.o.b.'s then how are we ever to turn this nation around.
And we must turn her around. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. America is the best country in the world and the freedoms assured us by the founding fathers as well as the liberties granted unto us by a loving God are ones that need to be taken back. The government of the United States of America has become so entitled it has ceased to function as it was created to do. We're being regulated into communism, sadly. Barack Obama has jumped on that train and is shoveling coal in as fast as he can . . . he wishes America to cease, completely. What wishes to create in her stead is terrifying to me.
So what are the answers? What are we, as Americans, supposed to do? Well, all I can do is repeat what I've written before:
- Learn the Constitution of the United States of America
- Understand the role of government as it was laid out by the founding fathers
- Become involved in the politics of the nation, meaning, attend your local party caucuses and cast educated votes in the elections
- Talk to your elected officials. How are they ever supposed to know you're unhappy if you don't contact them? How are they supposed to know what they are doing is right if you don't contact them?
- Make noise. We cannot effect change in this nation until we become educated (as to the above mentioned) and challenge those in Washington, D.C. to either defend the Constitution of the United States and stop regulating us to death or go home. We don't need their kind in Washington, D.C. anymore.
- Abandon the North American Union idea. Contact all those in Washington, D.C. and suggest this alternative: Keep the United States of America and add states such as Quebec, Toronto, British Columbia, Alberta, and whatever Mexican provinces are states there are. Bring them all under the umbrella of the United States of America and the Constitution of the United States, under our rule of law. That I can live with. All of North America as the USA . . . but abandon America and her Constitution . . . that's a big fat "hell no!"
- Cease dependence on Foreign Oil and bring that $460 plus billion dollars back into the American economy.
- Learn the rule of law, understand what is allowed and what is not.
Just what is Federalism?
![Just what is Federalism?]()
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Friday, May 30, 2008
Rating:
Candace,
ReplyDeleteI just learned recently, the details of how offended you were after visiting my home for a FreeCapitalist Project presentation. I read your blog entry here with keen interest.
First, I would like to state in no uncertain terms that it was not my intention to speak rudely or disrespectfully to you.
Second, having seen your perspective on this, I'm surprised. First, that you would take offense, after being an invited guest in my home, and then take the matter public with no notice to me or any attempt to resolve the matter. It makes me wonder about your motive for posting your criticism here. Your blog says that you are a teacher, a theologian and a writer. Certainly the idea of private matters going public has to be something you've dealt with before. Nevertheless, it is what it is - the reason I'm saddened by this going public is that I am sincerely interested in rectifying our different perspective and repairing the damage that was inadvertent. Attempting to do so after you've made a public issue of it makes it more difficult.
As far as my presentation style being arrogant, obnoxious and aggressive - I am willing to hear that criticism and consider your view. I've heard this before and do attempt to address my personality flaws. So, the criticism is not what is so troubling to me. The challenge I have is determining your seriousness. I mean, you quote sources like Sean Hannity and then call me arrogant and aggressive. Perhaps you view things differently because your experience was in my home not listening to the radio show - but really? Arrogant? I'd like to hear you explain that with an example, because I honestly don't see it. And obnoxious? Really? This too would have to be explained to me. Now, as far as aggressive, yes I fully see this. I am purposefully aggressive when speaking on certain topics.
Now, as far as insulting your husband. First, I was not insulting your husband - you had asked me a question in an honest but challenging manner and I had deviated from my planned presentation to try and teach more clearly what I was trying to point out about "preferences" "choice" "accountability" and "responsibility." You were the one that used your husband as an example, suggesting that he was not free to choose - and therefore his value preference was not that a gallon of gas was worth more to him than the money he paid regularly for it. I was pointing out that "he" (as you described him) and I included anyone else thinking in the same way, was acting like a "spoiled brat" because - and this is the point - we live in a culture where we have been trained, taught and educated to want other people to be responsible for our choices and preferences.
You had suggested that my example was faulty when I claimed that it was nonsense to suggest that gas was priced "too high" unless you were the one selling the gas - or unless you were refusing to buy it. Because, if you freely (without force or deception) were offering $4 in exchange for a gallon of gas (even if it was a price you considered high) you were obviously manifesting your own preference (or in the case of our example that you created - your husband paying for high gas prices). If a person freely gives up $4 for anything (in this case a gallon of gas) what they are saying is that they prefer to have the gallon of gas (and its attendant utility) to maintaining possession of the $4. Or in other words, they judged the gallon of gas to be worth more than the $4 they had.
You disagreed with my argument, but failed to articulate a reason. You simply suggested that "he didn't really havee a choice" because he had to go to work. Again, I suggested that was his preference (a good one I might add).
When we had an impass I choose to illustrate that problem by saying, "if that is the way your husband thinks then he is a spoiled brat, because he doesn't want to be accountable for his own preference."
I obviously don't know your husband, and no one present could have sincerely judged that my remarks were directed at him or reflected that judgement. You choose to take offense. My style was indeed aggressive - because I think the problem is pernicious.
The way I saw it, was here I am with a very intelligent women in my home, well educated, a leader of her peers and she will not face up to a basic reality of life - that each of us individually must be responsible for our own choices/preferences. I went on to teach that this is why people want to shift the responsibility to the government to change the prices - because they want others to be responsible for their preferences.
After that exchange you stayed for the rest of the presentation. I don't think you could argue that any of my canned presentation was nearly as aggressive as our exchange. After that event no fewer than a dozen people came up to me and a) thanked me for being so forceful to help them see that principle and b) looking for you to talk with you about the very example. You, of course, had not stayed around to see that benefit.
Now, did I benefit at your expense? I certainly did not intend to inflame your sense of loyalty to your husband. But in all honesty, I think your remarks that night were more insulting of the man you love. To suggest that he is as awesome as you represent and at the same time to represent him as a victim of his own preferences is what was so startling to me.
In the end, I'll admit, that may have been a poor choice in how to handle the situation. I'm sure I could have taught more effectively, and to the degree which I am the reason for your offense, I offer my appology.
I do notice however, that throughout your blog you use the same technique that I used that evening to make your point. For example, your public criticism of Jason Chaffets and very candid assertions about his character and his wrong doing in the past - certainly isn't polite. I don't disagree with the approach - in and of itself - and I think you are a good writer - in that you communicate your ideas effectively. What it seems to me is that you like to be the one doing the teaching so much, that when you were in my house, instead of trying to learn - you were offended - not at my treatment of your husband, but because I didn't treat you like the teacher.
Candace, I can tell from your public presentations that you have something to teach. I also respect that you are certainly free to judge me from that one encounter and even to insult me in pubic the way you have here. It just seems inconsistent with what you represent all over your own blog. For example, you write about Emma being misunderstood, and you write about your own experiences in the refiners fire - but I suggest your comments reveal that you are not trying to understand, build bridges, or reap blessings from the refiners fire - in your experience from a few hours in my home - instead you seem to be making excuses for why you choose not to grapple with a fundamental principles at the core of the struggle for liberty.
I agree with you, our messages our similar - but your response to my efforts reveals something more troubling. I am sorry for any offense. Perhaps we cannot repair that bridge. But, my experience in life is that when individuals who are highly motivated to accomplish a mission - run into each other - before writing everything off after one emotional encounter and resorting to public insults and attacks - it may be more useful to try (at least to a minimal degree) to rectify perceived wrongs.
I applaud your efforts in speaking out for freedom - either way.
Twice I've written a response to this and twice Blogger erased it. So I'll attempt it one more time before I give up.
ReplyDeleteRick, I'm surprised you would come to my humble blog to respond to someone I'm shocked you remember because of one heated exchange.
That being said, there was no reason to stick around your home that night. I believe we'd already been there close to four hours and I listened to your for those four hours. Every hour enforced the decision I was making about you and your words condemned you, and continued to do so throughout the night.
During that time I heard you denigrate your mother, attack my husband for working outside of the home and belittle the two of us for thinking gas prices are too high.
The one man who asked when we were going to begin talking about action, in other words, when were you going to stop lecturing and when were we going to figure out how to fix this nation, you cut him off so quickly I couldn't believe it, and in a very harsh, derogatory fashion. I was quite shocked at your behavior.
Another asked another questions and you responded to him like manner. Each time you did this I drew further and further from being supportive in the efforts you are making to educate people. Sadly, this valuable knowledge which should spread across the nation you want to make a buck off of . . . that's your right. That's the purpose of a capitalist society, which I am grateful we are. But are you trying to save this nation or simply put more money in your pocket?
What is more important to you? America or the almighty dollar? I have nothing against being rich. I intend to be that myself one day. But I also believe there are something which should just be done, and this is one of them.
Back to the previous subject. I'm not sure where thinking gas prices are too high immediately equates to wanting the government to take care of us. I want the government, as the regular readers of my blog know, to get out of the way and let us drill here at home.
Now, I'm aware you own an oil company and drill out of the country, that is your choice. But I want other oil companies to be able to drill domestically and bring the 460 billion plus back into the U.S. economy instead of paying our enemies. I don't see how that is wanting the government to take care of us. In fact, it is very far from it. States should be able to access their own resources without interference from the EPA or the government.
You ridiculed my husband because, as I mentioned earlier, he works out of the home. My husband works with juvenile delinquents. I ask you, if everyone thought like you, who would stand between America and the criminal element if people like my husband did not? My husband does his best to teach these children the difference between right and wrong, action and consequence and teach them to respect themselves and others more. I don't see how that's being a "spoiled brat." In fact, I can assure you he is anything but.
I'm sure you were quite pleased to have your point validated by the your regulars who attended your meeting that night. Trust me, there were just as many disgusted by the whole thing who walked out. One man had brought several people with him, because of the way you were that night he lost them all. Is that your intention? To drive people away or to educate them? Because if it was to educate then you failed on many levels.
When I challenged you on the "gas prices aren't too high" statement you ultimately attacked my husband. After a useless exchange with you I stopped because it was a complete waste of time. Why talk to someone who says "If you don't agree with me you're not ready so leave?" Indeed many people took you up on that invitation, I couldn't because I chose to accept a ride that night instead of driving myself. My ride wasn't ready to leave. Otherwise, I would have been long gone before we had that interchange.
All that being said, I agree with you on the value of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers as well as the rights and responsibilities of American citizens. I agree that we must educate ourselves and then take action if we hope to bring this nation back from the brink.
What I don't agree with is your arrogant teaching manner, which I believe I have amply explained. What I don't agree with is the "my way or highway" attitude prevalent in your presentations. I don't like the "I'm highly self-educated and if you're not you're an idiot." Now, granted, with that last one I put into words what your attitude and words conveyed, not what you actually said. So if those were the exact words and impressions were not what you were shooting for, then you've got some revamping on your presentation to do.
As to Chaffetz, I verified that story with no less than four reputable sources. I stand by it. He's a liar. I personally heard him lie multiple times--in person, on television and in the print media he sent to my home. How do I know he lied? Because I'm an informed voter. I've followed Chris Cannon's vote, legislation and actions over the last decade plus. Do I agree with everything he did, no, I don't. But, 98% of the time I did. He was a good Congressman and the 3rd Congressional District benefited greatly from his effort. Chaffetz has made promises a freshman Congressman cannot keep. That's misrepresentation to the people who voted for him. Of course, if they understood the workings of government they would have known without having to be told. He began with a lie and then continued to lie. When this story was brought to me I wasn't surprised although I was careful to verify the facts, including the people surrounding the aforementioned event. We have no record to base Chaffetz' actions on, only his character. Therefore, actions such as this matter.
I wish you the best with your efforts to education America to the value of the Constitution. But I don't have to agree with your methods, and I don't.
And Rick, may I add one more thing. You are quick to judge others, split second uninformed decisions. You need to stop and evaluate before making assumptions about me that you are unqualified to make. Yes, I am an educated, strong woman.
One paragraph in a blog on federalism and you ask why I didn't stick around meet with you and fix the situation. Why would I? I mean really . . . you'd shown multiple times that night that you had no interest in anyone else's opinion or viewpoint. I already knew I couldn't work with you because my own teaching methods are diametrically opposed to yous. I'm not one to waste time on a situation that looks unchangeable. I had a husband at home, recovering from a kidney transplant. In all honesty, I wanted to be home with him rather listening to you continuing to pontificate. Your comment here alone shows it would have been a waste of time as you've continued the same argument on this post.
In all honesty, I don't know how to end this. I hope that you are able to educate people about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the purposes of a republic. Really, I want you to be successful with that because in that point, you and I agree completely.