A So So Sotomayor.

A boring judicial nominee hearing is a beautiful thing.

There should never be fireworks at Supreme Court nominee hearings anyway. To protect and uphold the Constitution is a pretty straightforward task, don't let Congress or POTUS shred it to pieces. Yet the right was annoyed by not getting Sotomayor to answer questions that would show her liberal viewpoints, and the left is starting to feel a bit edgy on how much she is for "the cause" because Sotomayor stuck to strict legal terminology and theory when answering questions.

I could not ask for more.

I really don't care what her views are if she is humanly able to squelch them in favor of upholding the Constitution. Heck if she never makes news again for the rest of her career as a Justice, America should be thrilled. That means the Court is leaving legislating up to legislators, who believe me do not need any help. I hope one day Sotomayor is a Jay-Walking question that some UCLA grad student makes a fool of themselves on.

Isn't that a measure of greatness for a Justice?

Apocolypse Now!

Which is the bigger joke, that health care can be free or that the government can improve the health of anything it touches? I suggest every loyal citizen take a course in first aid for you may soon find yourself on a central planned population control wait list for those excessive MRI's you have become spoiled on.

You see its not that the compassionate fascist are not sincere about healthcare reform, its just that the goal is not improved health, its reduced populations. An example is our brand new "science czar" (what a scary thought) who is quite convinced there are just too darn many of us running around and we've become quite a burden dear mommy earth. Ideas? Hmm forced abortions, or maybe a drug in the water or food supply to cause you guys to be shooting blanks. I am beginning to see the connections now, to save the environment we must reform healthcare just like to save the economy we must create green jobs and have healthcare reform. It's all so relevant yes?

I personally believe Americans would be much more receptive to such ideas as spermicide tap water if our leaders simply lead by example. For instance if you feel the earth is overpopulated, jump off a building. But you see the experts are just too valuable for us to lose; do as I say, not as I do.

The New Middle in a Post-Progressive Age

Why must the middle consist of wishy-washy parasites?

If a Congressman does not have strong beliefs, why would he or she run? Might I suggest power, wealth via public expense, lack of job skills?

Surely the American people could see through such perversions of governance.

The fact is true progressivism, liberalism, socialist-fascism, whatever you care to call it, is totally incompatible with Conservatism. There is no more a workable middle than there is common ground between oil and water.

Nor should there be.

You may ask how to solve this? Change the debate.
There is one political ideology that can achieve successful governance using moderation of its left and right wings. Libertarianism. Imagine how much freer the US would be if the political debate was between a secularist Libertarian and say a Religious Right Conservative with Libertarian coloring. The objective remains, minimize government in people's lives, no matter which wins. There would be culture war battles, but balanced budgets year in and year out would do more for this country than any short term takeover of power by either party we currently have.

What is needed is a revolution in the way Americans look at their government. When they see it not as a provider but a hindrance and danger, real progress and Liberty will naturally find their step as intended by the fathers of old.

A proposal to homosexuals from a Southern Methodist.

To all homosexuals who want to get married, I have an idea on how to make conservative Christians of minimalist government persuasions and homosexuals quite happy.

Let's strike a bargain to suit common needs. We both hate the government telling us what is best for us. The problem is, homosexuals feel the need to embrace the entire progressive thought process over the single issue of gay marriage. Christian conservatives simply do not want the government telling them a lifestyle totally against their religion should be accepted against their will.

Marriage is a religious institution before God going back a very long time. Gays, you got to respect this. However, most of us traditionalist do not care what you do on your off time as long as you do not expect us to change our beliefs to accommodate yours. If you want to start your own church for your religious beliefs, feel free. We'll stick to what we believe about God as well.

As for the government, well we have a common enemy.

Therefore, end government recognition of marital status. Leave recognition and records of marriages up to religious institutions. Couple that with the elimination of the federal income tax, and there is no marital deduction to fight over as there is no income tax in the first place.

The gay marriage debate is a needless and false confrontation between citizens who have the same feelings toward the government from two different viewpoints. The real problem is statist government, per usual. So the invitation is open, I welcome all takers.

Is There a Compassionate Left?

It's an honest question. I mean we all know the stereotype of the general left is to care about the world, show empathy as President Obama put it, and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with it.

That is, until you understand the motives.

To know if a person, group, or party genuinely feels for another being is beyond the reach of my knowledge. I have to rely on their actions to pass my judgment as I hope you the dear reader makes a habit of doing as well.

Agreed? Good lets proceed.

Remember how upset the activist were at the most recent Bush administration's inaction over Sudan. It appeared as though Iraq was worth liberating since it had oil and strategic importance for the American Middle East strategy, but poor Sudan had neither the oil or the political value. It just had genocide of Christians. So the heartless Republicans ignored the helpless and only gave freedom to those who would benefit the US financially.

So....where is the outrage over Sudan now? I mean, shouldn't Obama do something about that? It certainly isn't getting any better. Would it not fall in line with his view that America is better off gaining the approval of the world rather than acting in its own self-interest?

Don't hear much from the ONE campaign lately either.

Let's remember who's watch Rwanda happened under. Oh yeah, Clinton who "felt our pain". Except Black Hawk Down made him nervous about sending in troops anymore and political coverage was more important than saving millions from machetes.

Sudan suffers because it is Christians being persecuted by the Muslim government, and it wouldn't be cool for the US to support Christians over Muslims on the world stage. That's why it continues. As for Rwanda, nobody cares about Africa when it counts. Sure the West will throw some aid money at it, but until free, stable capitalist based governments are the norm, it will remain the Dark Continent.

Heck we had the French help us out during our Revolution...oh yeah Britain was their sworn enemy....hmmm strategic value or compassion?

Politicians may say they care about all people, but sometimes it takes more than aid or gestures to solve a problem.

It takes courage.

There is nothing "good" about Democracy.

Yes,

thats right,

I just killed the sacred cow of Western civilization. Ever since President Wilson's vision of a more moral world order, American and generally Western Civilization has preached the gospel of free and fair elections. American sympathy for democracy movements in general can be found much further back concerning the French Revolution until the frenchies got a little too carried away with rolling heads. Now, it it certainly true concentration of power in the hands of some dictator or top-heavy governmental system is not the way to go unless you always hated the nagging responsibilities of free will does not change the fact that 100 million people can be just as wrong and dangerous as 1 really powerful one. For example, take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election to a second glorious term. No doubt, there were probably plenty of voter fraud in one form or another but regardless many millions of Iranians thought he'd done a commendable job since 2005. Or look north to Iran's benefactor Russia, or there's Venezuela and almost all of Central America, western Europe, or even the US the past century or so. All are examples of voters willing to give away some portion of their power in exchange for state sponsored goody bags. It is quite common for humans to freely vote away their freedom when they find no value for it in their daily lives. Material gifts, feelings of national pride, empathy are all much more valuable to many of us to a degree than having absolute control of our lives.

Man is flawed. There is no other explanation. We are not striving towards perfection, we are skipping into oblivion where comfort and ease trumps all. The people are dangerous, as is the state. The founders knew this very well that the danger to society comes from the top and the bottom, thus an elaborate yet simple system of checks and balances was built into USA 1.0. Only a people that practice basic morality like self-sacrifice towards their neighbor(not government cohered wealth redistribution) can operate the levels of power effectively. It cannot be forced by the state upon the people, it must be taught at the family level freely and gladly. Will such notions prevail?

Don't hold your breath.

While I was away...

First and foremost I do apologize for the silence. As you the reader well knows, I have not posted in several months now due to scholastic distractions, logistical interference, and general laziness.

It ends now.

I will try to write more like a "blogger" than columnist as is my habit and thus have shorter, but more frequent posts in the future to change the scenery. However, do not expect me to dwell on trivial subjects as so often is the content of a "blog". Registered Heresy strives to be aggressive, confrontational, and thought-provoking, not absent minded nothingness.

Instead of dwelling on the dull drums of today's headlines which aren't all that interesting unless your drooling over the prospect of a Fiat/Chrysler compact econo-can, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the best way to at least reduce the influence of federal power in the smallest level of governance, your personal life. First off let us ask why the Federal level is so powerfully(or at least powerfully in debt). I mean, why do states care what the feds say anyway? Minus an invasion from a foreign power or another state sending its guard to fight a neighboring state, the feds should in theory not be that important. However, state governments and then county governments rely heavily on the federal printing press to provide all those pressing social services to their citizenry. How to stop this?

END THE DEMAND FOR GOVERNMENT AT THE PERSONAL LEVEL

Now, how to do this? What would make citizens realize the true cost of government in their personal lives? Make them directly pay it. End income tax withdrawals from paychecks so reality burns hot as hell in April. When the true cost is made apparent, the demand will shrink naturally. The invisible hand of Smith's will reveal the invisible fist of statist policy. Once most state legislatures are populated with politicians who are committed to ending federal money flow, they will then be able to cut off state tax revenues to the federal level. Why pay taxes when you have no need for the services? This will destroy the federal level's ability to determine domestic policy from DC, and let it be determined from the kitchen table as intended.

Next, end artificial inflation by reverting back to the gold standard and suspending all federal spending until the national debt is under 1% of GDP. It is fine with me if you wish to increase spending, but only if you balance your checkbook and pay off each generations debt's before the next takes over.

Third, term limits for Congress, and no salary, only provide room and board. If a senator cannot accomplish what he sets out to do in 6 years, he's not much of a senator. Representatives can serve 3 terms as they have more frequent elections, but 6 years is plenty. I'd also consider changing the Presidential term to 6 years with one term, but I am open to debate on that idea.

These are only a starting point, focusing mainly on domestic agenda. I will have to save foreign policy for another post.

Remember, the government needs you more than you need it.