Over or Under?

I found this press release while exercising my rights as a capitalist:

How Does America Roll?

You can even voice your opinion. And I have marked iCal so that January 27th is a recurring holiday.

Diagramming the 2nd

Joonyah says that the problem with liberals is that they have forgotten their Basic English. He has submitted this example, which you will never see in a public school :

I think it would make a neat T-shirt, but woe to the child who wears it to English class.

For those who have forgotten, the diagram clearly points out that the militia is

1. necessary to the security of a free state, is
2. defined as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and
3. cannot be infringed by Congress.

Since the 2nd Amendment was passed subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution by the original 9 States, it clearly supersedes the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 and the prohibition with respect to troops in Article 1, Section 10.

Regarding Roe v. Wade

It is not possible to know in advance what sorts of legislative challenges will face the Congress in 2011 and forward, and therefore to set out numerous specific promises of action risks opening the door to the disappointment of the voters who anticipate a given set of behaviors.

My position with respect to the Constitution is this : at the age of 17, and several times thereafter, I gave my word that I would uphold that document and defend it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I intend to stay true to my word. There are those who claim that the Constitution is a document which must be interpreted in view of changing times, but I strongly disagree, for the freedoms from government oppression outlined in that document can only change if the definition of freedom itself is altered.

I have outlined in brief a number of points which I will endeavor to uphold. Some of those may be subject to minor flexibility, since I do not claim to have already formulated the optimal solutions to all problems facing the United States. I fully intend to faithfully represent those who will have chosen me to represent their interests, and I expect that at times they and I will have differences of opinion; should I be in opposition to the desires of a majority of my constituents, they may expect a strong personal protest before I carry out their wishes against my own judgment.

There are, however, several positions upon which I intend to stand resolute regardless the desires of the majority of those whom I represent. These are the protection of the unborn, the end of deficit spending by the United States, and the right of the people to know in advance what their representatives are deciding for them.

I will not vote for any legislation which includes Federal funding for abortions. It is my belief that life begins at conception, and, that once begun, a life should not be ended by men without conviction of a capital crime under due process of law. That is a religious and moral belief, and runs counter to the religious belief utilized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade when it arbitrarily decided that life begins for the unborn some 55 days after conception.

In deciding that case, the Court stated,

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

Then, rejecting the implications of personhood 'within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment', the majority of the Court proclaimed,

"...the word 'person', as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

To which Justice Rehnquist rebutted in his dissent,

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and 'has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.'

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

The majority of the Court, however, preferred to abandon the republican guarantees of legal impartiality for the democratic dogma that the few must obey the many, and that might makes right, claiming,

"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes 'viable', that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."
...
"In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."
...
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling point', in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth."
...
"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Based on the Court's own decision and the advances that have occurred in medical practice in the 37+ years that have passed since the decision, it has been the fault of the State legislatures and attorneys general that no new legislation protecting the unborn from murder has been passed and successfully withstood court challenge. With the ability of science to bring an unborn child to term outside the womb, and the relatively rare occasion when physicians cannot rescue both mother and child in the event of complications, the day will soon arrive (if it is not already here) when the State may, meeting the requirements of the Roe v. Wade decision, proscribe abortion at any stage of development of the child "except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

The Court's position of continued support for Roe v. Wade is strangely paralleled with that of the Catholic Church v. Galileo; when the Law attempts to regulate scientific or technological matters, it invariably ends up looking foolish.

In any event, the Court has held that it is the responsibility of the States and not the Congress to regulate abortion. I will not support any legislation which takes from the States that responsibility, and I will absolutely not support any Federal funding for abortion.

53

Thanks, Steph!!

...!!!51!!!...

43

31

This week has been hectic (do I hear an echo?), with a push to finish some of my work, Work Night at church, and tonight, company for dinner. Thankfully, there are some dedicated volunteers out there doing my job for me. That is why the numbers are increasing.

The problem of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio.

A major hindrance to getting petition signatures on nominating petitions is fulfilling the signature requirements sections of the ORC. From the 2010 Candidate Guide, for US Representative (p5) :

Signature Requirements (R.C. 3513.05, 3513.257):

1. Major party candidates: 50 signatures
2. Minor party candidates: 25 signatures
3. Independent candidates: Based on the number of votes cast in the
congressional district in the last general election for governor:

Number of votes cast:	Number of signatures:
Fewer than 5,000	25, or a number equal to 5 percent of the vote (whichever is less)
5,000 or more	1 percent of vote

and (p19) :

Petitions for a candidate for party nomination must be signed and circulated by persons who are members of the same political party as the candidate. (R.C. 3513.05)

What we are finding frustrating in a small way is the number of people who agree with my positions, but who were disillusioned by the choices they had in previous primaries and opted to vote an issues-only ballot in those elections. By doing so, they de-registered themselves from any party affiliation, and they are not eligible to sign a party petition.

This is reasonable, since the parties themselves exist for their own benefit, and it would be ridiculous to allow people who did not share the same platform viewpoints to take part in choosing the candidates for the election. Open primaries may seem like a very egalitarian thing, but the party primary system was designed as a way for large groups of like-minded people -- the parties -- to make decisions among themselves. The decision-making process would be corrupted by including people who might have a vested interest in weakening the party's position.

Nevertheless, Ohio law needs to be amended to enfranchise those who wish to be able to have input at the base level of politics. There should be no difference in the requirements for major party, minor party, or independent candidates. This would allow presentation at the time of the general election of a slate of candidates that would cover a wide range of position options. The resistance to such a plan comes from the parties themselves, because their power to control the electoral process would be diluted by such an open arrangement.

Impetus for change will not come from the Legislature, since it is dominated by the Republican and Democrat Parties. Change will only come from an initiative by the people, and working groups to produce such initiatives should be started, using blogging sites as 21st Century "taverns" for modern patriots to gather in, for discussion and refining of the process.

21

16

13

Makin' yer mark

It has been a hectic week, but the petition signing is under way. Between wrapping up a work project, and the death and funeral of Carl Demiter, there was no time to spend on the petitions.

It would be possible to get the entire 50 signature complement from one ward in Norton, but hopefully we can get signatures from other areas as well. It would be nice to be able to file by the end of this next week.

Have to be careful what I write here from now on, lest I run afoul of McCain-Feingold. There are too many laws designed to keep power out of the hands of the people.

Stai tooned.

Gotta Run...

Picked up a petition pack yesterday at the Summit BOE. Looking for 50 registered Republicans in OH-13 to get the show rolling.

Some quickie points :

** No Federal support for abortion. I will campaign to eliminate all Federal spending that contributes to the murder of the unborn.

** No deficit spending. Period. If the money isn't there, I don't plan to vote for the bill.

** No corporate bailouts. I will not vote for corporate welfare.

** National defense means just that. No revenge campaigns, and no mercenary activity on behalf of the United Nations. Put a defense shield over the country and let each State upgrade its Militia. Secure our borders. I will not vote for foreign adventurism by the United States military, but I will not stand in the way of protecting United States shipping and passenger transportation.

** No foreign aid. If citizens of the United States want to fund a foreign government, that is their business. Millions for defense if needed, but not one tax penny for foreign entities, including the United Nations. Any citizen who wants to donate his own money to the UN is free to do so. I will not vote for foreign aid to any nation.

** Remove from the Federal Reserve banks the power to print money. I will support legislation to require complete auditing and accountability to the Congress of the Federal Reserve system.

** Repeal Amendment 16. Bill the States for the cost of maintenance of the Government of the United States in proportion to their populations as stipulated in Article 1, Section 9. Each State should be free to tax its citizens as they deem appropriate in order to meet its Federal obligations.

** Repeal Amendment 17. Restore the ability of the States to resist the power of private national political parties.

** End Federal interference in education. I will not vote for any legislation which restricts or diminishes the rights of parents to seek out and obtain the best education for their children which they can afford. I fully support the right of each State to determine the best way to provide for the education of the children residing in their respective States.

** I will not vote for any bill that has not been exposed to public examination, without alteration or amendment, for 72 hours prior to the vote. Each time any such bill is scheduled for a vote and is amended, I will require an additional 72 hour public examination period before I consider voting for it.

While some of the above positions may seem radical and hard to imagine in practice, it should be remembered that the Great Experiment in government that is the United States was considered radical and impractical when it began, and is difficult even to this day for the inhabitants of other lands to imagine and understand. My goal is the encouragement of individual freedom and the growth of the entrepreneurial spirit in all facets of American society.

No doubt there will be many people who are frightened by the specter of freedom. Nevertheless, I offer a clear choice for those who believe in the dream of America.

Hard Drive

It happened. The dreaded hard drive crash. The iMac suddenly was lost in its own case.

I was able to access the drive in target mode and update my August backup of most of my files. The I tried to let TechTool repair the drive. The repair failed. So I tried to do a reinstall of the system software. The reinstall failed with the upgrade to Tiger; installed could not find some disk sectors. Bad drive, failed its physical.

Ooops. Forgot to do a recent backup of the Quicken data. Too bad, so sad.

Off to Best Buy for a replacement. A 500Gb WD Caviar Green. $75.

The instructions on the Apple Support page were simple enough. Out came the 160Gb Seagate, in went the 500Gb WD. Into Disk Utility to do a partition - 160Gb Avram, 160 Gb Yitzhak, remainder in Yakov.

In go the system CDs. Now for the fun of setting up, then updating to Tiger (I will NOT be upgrading to Leopard, because there is no Classic support in Leopard and I like some of the Classic apps). Then all the hastle of rebuiding the important files from the backups. Oh, joy.

Moral : a backup external hard drive is a good investment.

Moral : if you have it, use it.

Gittin' the Runs

As 2009 ran out its string and 2010 crawled out of its crevice, Joonyah and I shot the breeze, lamenting the trampling of the Constitution by the current Congress. We again tossed around the question of who might represent OH-13; that is, who might be in the running to raise the moral and intellectual quality of the occupant of that seat.

We did a little exploratory work. Visiting the sites of all four Boards of Elections in OH-13 (Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina, and Summit) revealed that no candidates had filed for 2010 yet. That is OK; the deadline for filing for the May 4, 2010 party primaries is February 18, 2010. For independent candidates, the filing deadline is May 3, 2010 (because independents don't have a primary).

Looking at the FEC requirements, an individual is not considered a candidate (even if he has filed the petition and is on the primary ballot) until he (or [a] person[s] authorized by the individual) has[ve] raised of spent more than $5000 for the campaign. There is a provision for voluntary registration with the FEC even if the $5000 threshold has not been attained, but the possibility exists (although highly unlikely) that a candidate could be elected to a Federal office without tripping the requirements. Posting the information we have uncovered on this blog, because no formal efforts have been made toward candidacy to date, is a sort of grey area that may or may not fall under 11 CFR 100.94 & 100.155.

The Ohio Administrative Code, (111-1) states, "The rules set forth in Chapters 111-1 to 111-6 of the Administrative Code shall apply to the nomination or election of candidates or support for or opposition to ballot issues in state and local elections. Nothing in these rules shall be construed as limiting or regulating federal elections, and those committees, parties, candidates, or funds when they participate in such federal elections." I would assume from that statement that only FEC requirements would apply (and as with any such assumption, I could be wrong).

If I were to run, would it be as a party candidate? Yes, for two reasons. Firstly, I have been republican in my leanings my entire life. A republican form of government was to be guaranteed to all the States under the Constitution, and a respect for the Rule of Law is essential to the maintenance of individual liberty. While other forms of government may extend individual rights, no other form of government protects individual rights.

Secondly, the regulations for access to US Representative candidacy in Ohio state that a major party candidate needs 50 signatures to have access to the ballot, a minor party candidate needs 25 signatures, but a non-party candidate needs signatures totaling 1% of the number of votes cast in the district in the last general election for governor. Looking at the stats for the 13th District, there were 297,680 votes cast for Representative, and assuming that about the same number voted for governor, the minimum number of signatures required for an Independent candidate to access the ballot in OH-13 would be about 3,000. In Norton 1-B there are just over 100 registered Republican voters; it would be possible to access the ballot as a Republican for the 13th District, covering parts of 4 counties, without even leaving my own precinct to gather petition signatures.

Of course, there is always the tantalizing challenge of running an illegal campaign (WhatifI) under the guise of Libertarianism.

"See, here is deep water, what doeth let me to jump in?" [calm down, that is a paraphrase]. When I last ran for Congress in the 13th District (2000), the situation was quite similar. Just before Thanksgiving of 1999, Mickey Axlebender Thirdson and I were bemoaning the fact that no Republican candidate had yet appeared to challenge the Democrat incumbent. He said that if I ran, he would manage my campaign. I stopped at the BOE, picked up a petition packet, and off we went. In about two weeks time, we had our signatures. With a total expenditure of about $300 (never even made it onto the FEC's radar screen), and with the Summit GOP endorsing my party primary opponent, I picked up 42% of the primary vote. In fact, a part of Stark County was in the District back then, and the SOS's stats show that I actually won -- quite handily -- in the Stark County portion of the District. [But, mind you, Stark County is vastly more conservative in its politics than Summit!!]. Thus, I have no doubt that my governmental views would resonate with a substantial portion of the electorate in the 2010 climate.

However, the run in 2000 did cause some discomfort for my Better Half, who was concerned over family privacy issues and the exposition created by a political campaign. Thus, my first concern is her consent. She has said that I can do whatever I want, and such a statement has dangerous undertones. I would prefer to have her support, indeed, I need her support. She willingly complied and followed me thousands of miles in previous attempts to joust at windmills, but in those days we were both a lot younger and more resilient.

Another concern is the support of my church. In 2000, I had the support and encouragement of most of the Elders I talked with, but my responsibilities at that time were quite different. I don't doubt that I would have the encouragement of the congregation, but the bigger question is whether or not it would be to their benefit.

Finally, there are the career considerations. I am on my way toward General Certification and new levels of accomplishment in my profession. Despite my age, I could be productive for another decade or more before senility rotted my cognitive functions. Becoming a US Representative would likely be a terminal career move.

Stay tuned, this is only the first day of 2010.