Perri Nelson's Website 

Some car tunes

At work, they've gotten this crazy idea that we must listen to music, nature sounds, or something. Apparently it's quiet, too quiet, in the office. We've each been given a chance to influence the playlist. Here's a few of my choices. Sorry, but the artist names aren't always correct. These songs were uploaded to imeem.com by a wide range of people.

Party Party party...

One of the ideas I've been mulling about lately has to do with our so-called two party system. People speak of the two party system as if it's somehow enshrined in the foundation of our Republic. It's obvious to me at least that there's a lot of people that aren't happy with the two party system that we appear to have. All you have to do is look at the various presidential elections we've had in this country to see it.

Most of us when we think of political parties in the United States probably think of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. But people who aren't particularly fond of either of those parties think of the Libertarian Party, the Green Party (or whatever color the party of Ralph Nader is this year), the Constitution Party, or even the American Conservative Party. It's been a long time since I've been out of school, but that seems to be a lot more than two to me, and doesn't even count a lot of the political parties that you never really see on the ballots (although a couple of them are on my list).

Still, there's a reason why people perceive that we have a “two party” system, and why all of those “other” parties are often referred to as “third” parties. That has to do with history, infrastructure, and size. For my entire lifetime, there have been Democrats (No, it's not a slur to call members of the Democratic party that… look at the URL for their own party website… www.democrats.org.) and Republicans, and third parties. Of course, the two major parties have been around a lot longer than that. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and his principal rival Stephan A. Douglas was a Democrat and their famous debates took place about a century before I was born. We've now had 43 Presidents, and only 11 of them were neither Republicans nor Democrats, although 4 were members of the “Democratic-Republican” party (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams). Andrew Johnson, the 17th President was a member of the Union Party (as was Lincoln) but the Union party was really the Republican Party renamed. Essentially, every President since Franklin Pierce in 1853 has been either a Democrat or a Republican.

At the time it was established, the Republican Party was a “third” party, pretty much the way we see other parties today. The two main parties at the time were the Democratic Party and the Whigs. One of the principal differences between the Democratic Party and the Whig Party had to do with the relative powers of Congress and the President. The Whigs believed that Congress should be the stronger of the two powers and the Democrats believed that the President should be. The Republican Party was established by men that wanted to stop the spread of slavery, and who believed that settlers in new United States territories should be granted land under homesteading acts free of charge. These positions split the Whig Party between the North and the South. The Kansas-Nebraska act had the effect of dividing the Democratic Party because it also affected the spread of slavery, undoing the Missouri Compromise. With the two major political parties suffering from the schism over slavery, the new Republican Party was able to gain enough support to become a major political party within a very short period of time. The Whig party essentially dissolved, with most of its supporters throwing in for Republicans.

The conditions that led to the success of the Republican Party were unique. No major political issue today even comes close the the controversy over slavery that existed in the 1850s. It's highly unlikely that the Republican Party's increasing break with conservative principles or the “chaos” that is affecting the Democratic Party's nomination fight will do much to affect the core constituencies of either party enough to throw strong support to any third party. In the last hundred and fifty years the conditions necessary for the success of a third party have never existed, and no third party has been successful in overcoming the weight of the two major parties.

The founders didn't deliberately establish a two party system. In fact James Madison didn't like the idea of political parties at all. Political parties have a tendency to acquire power and act against the interest of the people and the nation according to James Madison…

“[A] faction [is] a number of citizens... who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 10

When George Washington was first elected President, he wasn't a member of any political party. By the time he left office, he was a member of the Federalist Party, and there were already two major parties in place. Then, as now, one of the primary differences between the parties was over how much power the federal government ought to have. There have been two major parties in power in the United States ever since. There probably always will be. There are just too many advantages to the machine.

I don't particularly like the choices the Republicans and the Democrats give us, especially this year. Reading blogs, I find that a lot of my fellow conservatives feel the same way. There's the feeling that the Republicans have betrayed our ideals and left us with liberals and big government socialists. No matter how the Democratic nomination process turns out, a lot of liberals are going to be upset with the Democratic Party as well. Both of the major parties have drifted far away from the principles upon which they were founded. This general dissatisfaction is part of what gives the “third” parties the support that they have, marginal as it is.

Some of my favorite radio talk show hosts talk about holding true to the principles of conservatism, and yet they also are pragmatists. They urge us to support the Republican nominees even though those nominees are anything but conservatives. They do this because there is so little chance for third parties to succeed in national politics. They urge us not to "throw away" our votes. They've even gone so far as to belittle people that support third party candidates — even calling some of the people who call in to their shows to express their support for third parties “loons”.

I think I'm on the verge of becoming a loon, but I find myself in conflict over this. Mark Levin argues that the solution to the problems posed by the Republican Party's leftward drift is to “take back” the party. He's right of course. It worked for Ronald Reagan after all. The problem is, men like Ronald Reagan are few and far between. Political parties exist to acquire and hold power. They may be founded upon noble ideals but by their very nature they must become powerful and maintain that grip on power or they become irrelevant. A focus on the “electability” of a candidate sidesteps the principles the party is meant to serve. This is because we focus on a man (or woman) instead of on the message. It becomes about re-election. It becomes about personal power, and the power of the machine.

Charley Reese wrote about the 545 people responsible for all that is wrong in our government. Those 545 people are almost exclusively from two parties. What they do boils down to a power struggle between those two parties, and on what the parties need to do to stay in power. That's why we get men like John McCain handed to us as our choice rather than men that truly believe in the principles upon which our nation was founded. That's why we end up with men (and women) that bow to power, influence and money rather than to the Constitution and to duty. That's why we see the continual slide toward socialism and big government. That's why we see the entrenched bureaucracy that is threatening to become a new shadow government with more power than even the 545 have.

We have, since the Constitution was ratified seen a continual erosion of the principles it was based upon. This erosion can be traced to our political parties and on the power struggle that the founders tried in vain to keep in check. Every time we compromise a little bit with socialism and big government, the middle ground moves further and further in the direction of tyranny. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party are really good for America anymore, but they're what we've got. We can either work from within the system and take them back from the men and women that seek power at the price of liberty — or we can give up. (Believe it or not, the Supreme Court's recent decision about the "top two" primary process in the State of Washington might be a good thing after all... since in theory at least it does away with the notion of a two-party system.) Going the third party route is giving up.

So — how do we take back our party? Not by establishing yet another third party, and not by accepting the status quo. Voting for John McCain isn't going to return our party to conservatism, but it's a damned sight better than ensuring that yet another vote doesn't go to the Republicans by voting for a third party candidate or worse yet voting for Hillary or Obama. Voting for a third party is only marginally better than voting for Hillary or Obama. Do the math. If a Republican (read conservative, not all conservatives are Republicans and certainly not all Republicans are conservatives) voter votes for Hillary or Obama in the general election out of disgust with the Republican Party, then the Republicans LOSE ONE vote and the Democrats GAIN ONE vote, for a TWO vote swing. Voting for a third party candidate means the Republicans LOSE ONE vote, while not affecting the Democrats' vote count at all, resulting in a ONE vote swing, but it's STILL a swing toward the Democratic side of the tally. The lost vote is certain to go somewhere where it will have little effect, because the conditions necessary for a third party victory haven't existed for over a century and a half. Other than a stand on principle, the voter might as well have not voted at all, like the vast majority of the populace.

No — the way to take back our party has nothing to do with the general election, especially not with the Presidential election. We take our party back by starting earlier. We take our party back by ditching the incumbents in the primaries if they don't suit our ideals. We have to field conservative candidates up front. We have to vote on principle early and often, not in the ACORN model where we register multiple times and vote multiple times in a single election, but rather in every caucus and primary that comes to us until we through out the bums that don't represent us and nominate candidates that do. Wresting control of the parties from the political machine isn't going to be easy, and it's probably going to take lifetimes. Unless we do it though it's going to take another armed revolution to restore liberty to our nation. Third parties aren't going to do it.

"Do you hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability."

Wake up Neo!

What is the Speaker of the House doing?

Once upon a time, I thought that the United States Constitution was the supreme law of the land. In fact, Article VI, paragraph two states…

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So how is it that when the Executive branch, whose powers and responsibilities are enumerated in Article II of the Constitution acts upon those powers and responsibilities, that the Speaker of the House of Representatives somehow contrives to block that action? Here I'm talking about Article II, section 2, paragraph 2…

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

As far as I can tell, a plain reading of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives no say at all in treaties between the United States and foreign nations. The last I checked, Nancy Pelosi was a member of the House of Representatives, and not a Senator. Even so, it looks like a fit of pique has somehow taken the Speaker and that our government ignores it's fundamental document to satisfy her. This from the Washington Times…

President Bush today castigated House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her actions last week that torpedoed a vote on the Colombia free trade agreement, taking it off this year's congressional calendar using a rule change.

“That bill is dead unless the speaker schedules a vote,” Mr. Bush said, after meeting at the White House with members of his Cabinet. “There is big disappointment around this table about the action the speaker took on the Colombia free trade agreement.”

The president said Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, took an “unprecedented” step to change the rules and deny a vote this year.

“It's not in our country's interest that we stiff an ally like Colombia, and that we don't encourage our goods and services to be sold overseas.”

Of course, this probably wouldn't be possible if the President treated the Colombia free trade agreement like a treaty between nations rather than a piece of legislation. After all, there's nothing in the Constitution that gives any kind of legislative power to the executive branch of the government. Oh, I suppose that there's something to be said about Congress' power to regulate trade between the Unites States and foreign governments. That is after all one of the enumerated powers of Congress, as Article I, section 8, paragraph 3 states that “The Congress shall have the Power”…

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Even so, Mrs. Pelosi is playing games, placing socialism before common sense.

The speaker reiterated that she is blocking the vote to obtain “leverage” in negotiations over further government action to spur the economy.

"We believe it is possible to bring the Colombia free trade agreement to the floor under the proper circumstance. But first, we need to address the worsening economy in our country," Mrs. Pelosi said.

It's an economy that is worsening not because of actions taken by the executive, but rather because of the irresponsible actions taken by the legislature — suppressing the development of American energy sources, encouraging citizens to behave like congressmen — spending money that they don't have by allowing and encouraging predatory sub-prime mortgage lending tied to the capriciousness of the Federal Reserve Bank's (you know, that organization now in charge of U.S. monetary policy because Congress didn't want to do its own work?) desire to avoid of all things “deflation” by manipulating interest rates, punishing innovation and entrepreneurship by regulating small businesses into the ground and rewarding businesses that fail due to speculation with expensive buy-outs.

Mrs. Perino said that the White House is not willing to negotiate on the key issue of trade adjustment assistance (TAA) — compensation and training for workers who lose their jobs because of free trade — until Mrs. Pelosi schedules a vote.

“Until we have a date for a vote, there is no need really to have those conversations,” Mrs. Perino said.

Meanwhile, by punishing the one truly democratic success story in a region being overwhelmed by socialist revolution and state enabled exploitation of the economy, Nancy Pelosi shows once again that politics, rather than common sense, drives her agenda. She's upset that the White House didn't "follow the protocol" for fast tracked agreements. Her little fit of pique surely stands to show once again that the Democratic Party has little interest in democracy, or in anything that props up an ally of our country. It's all about personal power for them.

Fifty Years of Math 1957 - 2008

Every now and then, someone sends me something in email that strikes a chord. This time, it was my sister in law, who's no conservative, but she's always fun.

First of all, I know it's really 51 years of math, but then...

Fifty Years of Math 1957 - 2008

Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried.  Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:

1. Teaching Math In 1950s: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math ion the 70's: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s: A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's okay.)

6. Teaching Math In 2008 Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

Oligarchy, not democracy

Sometimes you just have to wonder "what's the point". Paul Jacob's "Common Sense" emailing this morning gives a perfect example from Missouri.

What the constitution says

private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner.

What the Missouri Supreme Court says

Governments have an…

unlimited and practically absolute sovereign power of eminent domain

The result

A man's private property is declared blighted, and taken by eminent domain, to be flipped over to a private developer.

The solution?

He can change the law. He's working with Missouri Citizens for Property Rights on two voter initiatives.

To which I respond

Bullpuckies! What good will changing the law do? We just witnessed the Missouri Supreme Court completely ignore the plain wording of the Missouri Constitution. If the court isn't even bound by the Constitution, what makes anyone think they'll be bound by the law?

Click here for Paul Jacob's audio.