Conserving Ink is a Conservative blog with a focus on State's Rights. Please subscribe to our Twitter for updates.
Goal: 100 Likes.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Who Left Who?

I was thinking about Secession today.  And I started parsing to true meaning of the word.

se·ces·sion [si s├ęsh'n] noun:
A formal withdrawal from an organization, state, or alliance.

In this case we are pondering the Session of States.  From what?  From the United States of America.  So what is the United States of America?  Exactly what would the hypothetical State be seceding from?

The United States of America is a collection of independent sovereign states under the mutually agreed upon governance of a Constitution. This Constitution creates a Federal governing body that presents a common and united face to nations outside the group and also governs the commerce between the States so as to maintain equality in economic and judicial interactions.

But mostly the Constitution establishes what the Federal body can not do.  It protects the Sovereignty of the States and the individual citizens above all.

The United States of America are united because they agree to and follow the Constitution of the United States.  Secession is the act of rejecting that Constitution and the States that are still adhering to it.

It is at this point that I would like to put forth the theory that Secession has already happened.  Let's look at the poster child for Secession, Texas.  In the recent months bills declaring the refusal to follow Federal Laws and Programs such as Gun Control, the TSA, NDAA and ObamaCare have all found their way into the Texas State Legislature.  On the face of it these look like very rebellious actions.  Surely these Texan upstarts are ready to tear down the Stars and Stripes and start lobbing shells over the New Mexico border.

But look again. Gun Control, the TSA, NDAA and ObamaCare are all unconstitutional.  Each of them is a blatant violation of the common document that binds the individual States together.  By considering these laws, Texas is reasserting their belief and adherence to the Constitution of the United States.

In view of that, what are we to make of States that embrace these unconstitutional laws?  New York is not only embracing these laws but adding to them in onerous ways.  New York has made it clear that it holds the Constitution of the United States in contempt  and wants no part of it.  New York has rejected the document that binds the individual States together to form the United States of America.

I contend that New York has already Seceded from the Union by rejecting the Constitution.

The Union was created by the Constitution.  You can not be part of the Union while rejecting the Constitution.  The Liberal run states that have rejected the Constitution and then accuse the Conservative States of being in defiance of the American people.

We have not left the blessed Constitutional Union, they have.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Total Power in a Few Simple Steps

Let's pretend that you are amazingly wise and intelligent and have the answers to all of society's problems.  As a man like that, you should be in charge of everything, right? Right.  So how does one rule all that they survey with complete and benevolent power? You'll need a plan.  And you are lucky, I have one.  Not that I had ever thought I needed total power and control, honest.

You'll need a lot of followers.  They don't need to have any particular skills or real focus, this is a Democratic Republic.  These useful unusefuls are called voters.  Voters are easiest gotten when you have something to offer them. (Note: 'Offer' and 'Give' are two very different words.)  Rich folk don't need anything and the middle class can never agree on what they want as a homogenous group.  That leaves the poor.  They're pretty easy to placate, just offer them money, it doesn't even have to be yours.

To win elections you'll need a lot of poor.  Don't sweat this, poor are easy to make.  Just 'fix' the economy like a dirty auto mechanic.  The poor don't know how this whole magical economy thing works.  If they did they wouldn't be poor, would they?  While you're breaking the economy keep blaming the Other Guy.  With a little luck, a handful of middle classers will believe you and fall in with the growing ranks of poor.

It only takes 51%, that's a Mandate for you.  You're the Answer to All of Society's Problems. Once you're in you'll find that you have considerably less power than you thought you'd have.  There is still work to do.  The poor will start noticing they're still poor.  This needs to be dealt with first.  Blame the rich and promise to make them poor too.  For some reason this works better than promising to make everyone rich, go figure.

Take the money you were promising the poor and put it to something more useful like bullets and armored personnel carriers.  Trust me, you'll need these later. Then drop subtle hints that the poor should get unruly. When things get heated and chaotic announce that there are too many guns.  People hate being shot at and will give you the guns, especially the poor.

Secretly turn up the heat again and bring the country to a boil.  Then move in with all those armored carriers and bullets while suspending to Constitution for the sake of peace.  There will be a lot of resistance from the silly jingoistic nationalist patriots, but what are they going to do? Throw rocks?

Now you have all the power you deserved from the beginning.  You also have a broken economy, civil unrest and at least 51% of your citizens being a financial drain not a asset.  So you have one last step to set things right and seal your position as Ruler Over All You Survey.

Kill the poor.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Its About Love

The words 'hate' and 'chicken sandwich' have seen a lot of press lately.  Understandably so, they are a startling juxtaposition of ideas.  However, I feel that the point has been entirely missed with Mr. Carly's support of traditional marriage and the feelings of those who side with him and his delicious chicken sandwiches.

You see, it's not about hate.  It's about love.

We don't hate homosexuals. By 'we' I mean the majority of those of us who strongly support traditional marriage instead of a new definition that allows same sex couples.  Yes, there are a few true bigots out there – but they are by far the exception and not the rule.

We don't hate homosexuals, nor do we desire to stop them from having meaningful relationships with their peers.  This is not the conflict. We may disagree with the homosexual lifestyle on religious grounds, but that same religion insists that we love all God's children regardless of their burdens in this life.  Hate the sin, love the sinner.  It's not a sound bite, it's the true attitude of most Christians.

It's not about hate, its about love.

I love my wife.  I love my wife and the relationship I have with her framed by the sacred covenant of marriage as instituted by a loving God.  I love the life changing power and joy that comes from the give and take between me, my wife and God as we use this sacred binding to bring children into this world into a loving family.

I love the overwhelming glimpse of eternity that comes from the bond between generations knit together by solemn vow and fervent promise to hold and to cherish each other and to give everything, including our very lives if we have to, for the children we are given.  Just like our parents did for us and each other.

My marriage is not a mere piece of paper with an authorized signature and a government letter head.  It is not a tax filing status.  It is not authorized or created by any sovereign power on Earth.  It is merely recognized by them.  God made my marriage real and binding. The marriage certificate only made it public record.

When a same sex couple wants to apply the name 'marriage' to any government sanctioned contract between them, they change the meaning of the word itself.  This new definition of marriage is devoid of sacredness and does not in anyway reflect the covenants made between a Man and a Woman and their God to create new life and build a family.

They take something special and irreplaceable from my marriage to my wife.  The idea of our marriage is cheapened and tarnished.  It becomes less than it formally was.

The problem comes from homosexual individuals trying to walk one path to a entirely different destination.  Every path taken leads somewhere.  The more different the path, the more different the final destination.

When an individual chooses to walk the path of the homosexual lifestyle, they chose to walk towards its final destination.  If one chooses to walk a path of heterosexual marriage and take the covenants that it entails, they choose it's final destination also.

You can not travel the homosexual path and arrive at the heterosexual destination.  No matter what words you twist and violate to describe the achieved goal, it will never be true marriage, the path will not allow it.

Like it or not, marriage is by definition a religious covenant. I can say with complete confidence that no one supporting same sex marriage would think that a Muslim should be able to perform their daily prayers in a Jewish synagogue or that a Catholic should be able to serve communion in a Baptist church when ever they wanted to. It would be correctly seen as an assault on the religious liberties of the other believer. No one would say that the Muslim was being oppressed because he couldn't pray in the synagogue.

Marriage is a sacred rite and covenant to every Judeo-Christian sect known to man. Almost all of those sects agree that homosexuality is incompatible with the marriage covenant. It is not oppressive to say that homosexuals do not have the right to force themselves into that rite of worship, completely dismissing all the dearly held traditions of the very people who first practiced the sacrament of marriage.

It's not about hate.  It's about love.  The love I have for my wife and my marriage is too important to allow it to be transmuted into an empty and hollow facade of a once sacred institution.  I'm not fighting to stop the relationship between others who feel differently than me. I'm fighting to save the most important thing in my life, my marriage.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Drilling and The Constitution

More than one expert (Eric Bolling, to name one) has watched the growing chaos in the Middle East since the fall of Egypt and postulated that if Saudi Arabia were to go the way of Egypt and Libya that we could easily be looking at $10 per gallon at the pump. It was only couple of years ago we were screaming at $4 or even $5 gas. There was a painful increase in food and heating prices in response to the increased cost of shipping and all things petroleum.

It is doubtful the country could truly survive $10 gas without devastating consequences.

The very fact that we find ourselves facing this possibility is an embarrassment. The constant war and chaos in the Middle East is not a surprise to us. It has been a staple of the evening news for decades. Yet we continue to rely on this region for the vast majority of our energy needs. This is akin to doing your grocery shopping at a burning store, always hoping that it will wait just a little longer before it collapses into smoking rubble.

Our response to the unpredictable Middle East is to refuse to tap into our own energy resources. The Obama Administration has refused to give its blessing to offshore drilling even after a Federal judge declared that its moratorium was unconstitutional. And why is offshore drilling so important? Because our Federal government views all “onshore” drilling as a threat and fights any attempt to do so.

This morning I went back through the Constitution to make sure that I had not missed some language that supported these actions.

Article I Section 8 lists the Powers of Congress and Section 9 lists the Limits of Congress. There was no power given over State owned resources or land.

Article I Section 10 lists Powers Prohibited to States, once again, no mention of resources.

Amendments 9 and 10 make make it clear that the above absence of Powers given to Congress to limit a State's use of its own resources retains that power to the State only.

So my question is this. What is the source of the authority of the Federal Department of Energy to tell sovereign States that they can not drill, mine or otherwise use their own resources and land as they see fit? I can find none outside of simple voluntary enslavement on the part of the States.

It is the moral obligation of the Attorney General’s of each of the States to notify the DOE that their state will no longer voluntarily participate in the Federally sponsored energy crisis. The oil bearing states must begin to drill and refine any available resources in spite of Federal protests if the country is to survive the coming energy crisis.

I am currently a Oklahoma resident, so I am well aware of just how much oil and natural gas is below the grass in this blessed land. I will be writing every State Congressman and my Attorney General to give him or her my strong opinion on this matter. I humbly urge that you do the same.

Monday, February 21, 2011

You Have Been Adjusted

There is a trailer out for a new movie called “The Adjustment Bureau.” The movie is about a mysterious secret organization that controls everything around us without our knowledge. It controls us by controlling what we know and who we meet. When things start to drift off course “adjustments” must be made.

This raises the question, how crazy is the premise? Have we been “adjusted?” I propose you have. Let me lay out the evidence.

The protests in Wisconsin are pretty hardcore, lots and lots of very angry people. Too bad they aren't all from Wisconsin. Organizing for America is an Obama website that is mobilizing and busing union people to the State to bulk up the crowds.

But the union guys don't have the best work ethic, so some protests find more reliable sources of rent-able sign wavers, the homeless. I have personal experience during the anti-Obamacare protests in Tulsa of watching the pro-Obamacare protesters putting their signs down at 1:00 pm on the dot and collecting their checks. It was a bit surreal.

American protests aren't the only “adjusted” protest going on, ever notice that most of the Egyptian protest signs are in English. Ever wonder if the Egyptian waving it even knows what it says? Those signs aren't for the Arab viewers, they are for you. Why would a Middle Eastern protester care what a non-Arab a dozen time zones away thought of his efforts? And who handed him the sign and convinced him to wave it?

I imagine these are only a little concerning to you, these tricks aren't even news to you. What if I told you that the US government was creating fake online people to mold public opinion through social media sites. Are all your Facebook friends real? Or are you being adjusted?

Our world is our perceptions, we experience only what we see and hear. With special interests, unions, political parties and even our own government creating illusions for our consumption, our world is constantly being adjusted by those who do not have our best interests at heart. We have to pay closer attention or we'll miss the cracks in the facade. We have to resist the Adjusters.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

This Business Supports FairTax

This isn't really a blog, but there has been more than one person that wanted a larger version of this graphic I did.  To use it just get some of the static cling paper that places like Office Depot sell and print two to a sheet. Apply to any business window you legally own.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Political Flocking

The Progressive opponents to freedom and personal liberty in this country are a well oiled machine. We’ve watched their politicians deftly maneuver the back room deals and every other conceivable act of legislative cunning. The myriad of activist groups and unions have danced for the media with practiced ease while delivering well rehearsed and poll tested messages.

For the Conservatives, it has been amateur hour. Our veterans don’t seem to grasp true Conservative values and our new-on-the-scene patriots are saying all the right things all the wrong ways. The various Tea Party and 912 groups that have sprung up seem to have no idea what to do with the passionate fervor their members bring to the group besides wave signs and vote their conscience.

Why is there such a difference between the two ideologies in their ability to move their agenda forward? How can an entire section of population with common goals and beliefs be so bad at conveying and realizing them?

There is a area in Computer Sciences called A.L. or Artificial Life. In A.L. circles programmers try to mimic behaviors and traits seen in nature in a digital world. One of the problems that Artificial Life coders tackled was that of flocking. Birds and fish tend to travel in large groups of like animals. Flocks and schools can be made of hundreds of individual creatures but move as if they were almost a single entity. The A.L. researchers wanted to know how this was accomplished and if it could be replicated.

Craig Reynolds was one of these coders. He worked out a set of rules with only 3 or 4 rules to govern the individual birds, or Biods as he called his digital critters. Without any real cooperation between the digital birds and only a small handful of rules for the individuals, Reynold’s Biods were able to flock perfectly. Part of the secret was all the Biods had to be using the same rules.

This is why the Progressives have been doing so well. With hundreds of smaller groups, most with hot button causes that are completely different from each other’s, the Progressives have achieved political ‘flocking’ through a universal set of rules used by all the groups. They train their people often and thoroughly. The people doing the training are often from other groups and train across the spectrum.

The Progressive ground troops are taught how to talk to media and how to deliver the message with all the right code words. They are taught how to use the system when its to their advantage and how to circumvent it when its not.

This is probably one of the very few concepts that Conservatives need to borrow from Progressives. When we can train ourselves with a universal set of rules based on Conservative thought and values then we can achieve political flocking. This will result in the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, a synergy that will move the Conservative agenda forward. Conservatives far out number true Progressives in America but so far its been an even match. We need to teach ourselves how to correctly fight for our beliefs and then it won’t be so even any more.