Advance Directive

I haven’t yet written my personal advance directive. I thought that doing it here, not only would it be in print, I would have the chance to define some terms my own way. So here goes.

image from here

If a time ever comes that I am in a hospital on life support, I DO NOT give permission for life support to be removed to hasten my demise.

Here are the basic reasons:

·        I believe the decision about when I die belongs to God, not to me or any other person or entity (exception: if I were to commit a heinous murder and had thereby subjected myself to capital punishment—but I think that scenario is easily avoided).

·        I reject the premise that a person deserves the “dignity” of choosing the time, place, and circumstances of their own death. How does usurping that authority from God make you more dignified, rather than simply unwilling to trust God?

·        I reject the premise that people who are a “burden” on their loved ones, or on society, have committed a capital offence.

·        In addition to the above, I reject the premise that, since good people don’t want to “burden” their loved ones or society, euthanasia is the preferred option to alleviate that guilt.

·        I have experienced a long history of failures by medical experts; I don’t automatically trust their opinions about whether healing can come. I believe in miracles, and I don’t want to rule out that possibility. I also believe that the brain can respond to stimulation and exercise, and is worth trying to rehabilitate.

·        When it is time for the Lord to take me, I want to go in harmony with Him, knowing that even in the difficult last hours, I did not rebel against Him and insist on my own way.

·        I absolutely DO NOT want my family members burdened with the decision to overrule God.

·        I refuse to let anyone imply that I have given permission to medical personnel to decide I am not worth treating. If medical personnel or government bureaucrats (death panel) try to take that decision upon themselves, I want them to know that I expect them to stand judgment before God for undervaluing my life (or anyone else’s).

Now, I think we have to define some terms. We think we know what life support is: machines maintaining life that would otherwise not continue, so it’s artificial life and not real life. But in reality, life support has some specific aspects.

One is air. We need to breathe. In older times simply the absence of breath was the indicator of death; there wasn’t a remedy. Now we can provide oxygen and help a person breathe. Usually this is expected to be temporary, but there are a number of people, often elderly, who are able to go about their lives as long as they bring along their oxygen tank. They’re conscious, definitely alive. Without the oxygen, they would likely soon die, but with the oxygen they can enjoy their life for possibly a number of bonus years. So a life on oxygen isn't by definition an artificial life.

Another is heartbeat. Lack of heartbeat is another indicator of death. But sometimes a stopped heart can be restarted. Worth trying? To the millions who have responded to defibrillators, probably so. One of the machines people are hooked up to might be a heartbeat monitor (that beeping thing with the jagged line, that sends an alarm when it goes to a flat line, so stimulation to restart the heart can be tried again). Unplugging it would do nothing but remove the indicator that help is needed urgently.

Another one is blood. In older times, large loss of blood typically led to death. Now we can provide blood transfusions, to resupply.

Another one is nutrition: food and water. If a person is unconscious, they may need an IV to supply nutrients, because they can’t eat. Or there might be a feeding tube or maybe some other method I’m not thinking of. The food supply is probably put in at a point when there is a supposition of possible recovery. You don’t starve an unconscious patient; you give them nutrients, so the body can heal.

Food, rather than some “artificial life,” is the likeliest issue concerned in an advance directive. If you assume someone is not going to recover, and you want to hasten the inevitable death, you remove the food. You starve the patient to death. In the already weakened condition it could take from a few days to a couple of weeks for the unfed organs to begin to shut down, one after another.

Dying of starvation and thirst is a painful way to go. And it’s unnecessary. There are ways to continue giving the patient nutrients.

Are there exceptions? Possibly. Suppose you have an Alzheimer’s patient, nearing the end. Almost no mental function—which is soon going to affect control of various organs that require input from the brain. Suppose the patient is essentially unconscious most of the time, and never lucid when conscious. Are you required to feed artificially in order to lengthen the time of death? You could. But you could also offer food and water whenever the patient can be persuaded to swallow. At that point you are nurturing the patient, not artificially lengthening life. In this case it isn’t a matter of removing life support; it’s a matter of choosing whether to impose that form of feeding, or continuing the more natural way.

I don’t want to be a burden on my children. I intend to continue earnestly striving to maintain good health; they are all aware of this. Plus, the odds are in my favor. Brain function has been good in my family; my maternal great-grandmother had dementia in her last years. No one else. No grandparents. No aunts and uncles. My dad was 91 and fully lucid the last time I got to talk with him, the day before he passed away. My mom is 85 and still sharp and taking care of herself in her own home. So it looks like genetics are with me.

But, while I hope I can be active and involved with my family up until the very end, I recognize that some things may be beyond my control. I don’t wish that burden on my children. But I want them to know that God will bless them for any loving care they give. One way God blesses us is with increased love for those we willingly serve. So I admonish my children to willingly serve me and their dad, because I want that blessing of increased love in their lives.

I want them to know that I believe in them; they can be loving, even in difficult circumstances. I don’t discount them by thinking such a challenge is beyond them, and, like some misguided helicopter parent, signing some paper that will whisk the problem away.

I don’t mean to indict others who have “no resuscitation” orders or similar advance directives. They may have a different understanding of “pulling the plug” than I do. They may have a different relationship with God than I do. I’m not trying to persuade them; I’m just trying to declare what I want.

I want life. It’s a matter of gratitude. I want abundant life, appreciating every day I get here with those I love, even if some of those days are difficult. I want Heavenly Father to know that I hope to always trust Him to be with me during whatever hard times come. And I want my children to know that valuing life, trusting God, and offering loving service make for a better life than avoiding burdens or misplaced guilt.

I choose life.

Logical Leaping Leprechauns

image from here

There’s no purpose in having Leprechauns in the title, except that it is St. Patrick’s Day, and they are dangerous tricksters, with the promise of unearned prosperity that you never get.

I was reading the Outlook (opinion) section of Sunday’s Houston Chronicle, and started reading a piece, by a local physician, that at first struck me as way more conservative than I usually find in that section. Here’s the beginning:

   In high school, I had to memorize the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I did not understand why then, but I do now. This is essentially the mission statement for the United States. When I served on the U.S. Senate staff during the initial months of the health care reform debate in 2009, I thought that the Preamble should serve as a touchstone for proposed legislation. Given that health care reform legislation would affect every American and about one-sixth of the economy, it seemed prudent to return to first principles to justify such action.

   The Preamble begins by saying who wrote it and why. The government derives its power from the people. That power should be used continuously to improve the country that the Founders fought to free from foreign control. Establishing and preserving justice, peace, safety, well-being and liberty were all part of the role of the federal government. Implicit in the singling out of “our posterity” is the idea that this was to be a timeless arrangement that would protect us collectively and individually.

This is almost exactly right on track. We want people to do this—read the Constitution, recognize that mission statement in the Preamble, and limit government to its proper role.

But there’s a change he makes, which I didn’t catch until I read further (because I had failed to read the article title). Notice when he’s listing the roles of the federal government, he uses the term “well-being” instead of “general welfare.” He could mean the same thing I do, which I think is what the founders meant. But he doesn’t. I believe it means the federal government is limited to making laws that affect the population as a whole, rather than specific special states or groups. And those laws, according to the enumerated powers of the federal government, are designed to protect life, liberty, and property (and the freedom to pursue property/happiness as one chooses, rather than having government choose one’s profession).

 

So I was surprised at this very next passage in the op-ed: “How does the Preamble support health care for every American?” Um, it doesn’t. Health care is a service that can be purchased. Government’s job is to get out of the way of informed legal transactions. This is an odd question to follow the correct claim that the Preamble is the US government mission statement.

The leap of logic is revealed in the next paragraph:

That there is such inequity in the provision, access, cost and quality of health care in America is inconsistent with a just country.

So, to him, a “just country” is one in which no one can purchase more care than anyone else; they can all purchase exactly the same services regardless of resources. Social justice. Code for socialism.

That bit about “I understand the Constitution” was just a cover for “I think government’s role is really supplying everything we as a majority decide everyone ought to have.” This is FDR’s “positive rights” argument/fallacy. Commodities and services might be nice to have, but they aren’t rights. God gives us rights.

We’re born here naked, impoverished, and inexperienced. We spend our lives working our way out of that condition. But the only “entitlement” involved is the requirement that parents provide their children’s needs, teach them, and prepare them for self-sufficiency.

The government can’t “give” you a commodity or service without requiring a taxpayer to pay for it. Government isn’t allowed by the Constitution to provide any commodity, only services—and only those services that fit in the category of protecting your life (not allowing others to harm you), liberty (not allowing others to enslave you), and property (not allowing others to steal your property).

There’s nothing in there about providing “health care.” If health care were a right, then why would we pay doctors for it? They would have to provide it because it’s our right. But that would be enslaving the doctors, who should be justly compensated for their skilled services. So, in order not to enslave doctors, the government would have to pay them—and the government only gets money by taking it from taxpayers. So the taxpayers would be enslaved (forced to work without being able to keep their income) in order to pay for the health care of someone they don’t even know. Including those who don’t take care of themselves the way that taxpayer has done. Is that fair?

In his piece this doctor does say some things I agree with:

The debate I witnessed in Washington in 2009 was never based on discussing how to fulfill the mission of the United States through a different form of health care delivery. Rather, a deal was concocted that preserved the basic aspects of the system we already had with third-party support of health care payments, despite the third parties (insurers) adding nothing to the health of anyone, but reaping huge profits for bookkeeping and risk management as a means to maximize shareholder value.

 

He’s right; Obamacare proponents have conflated health care with health insurance, even though insurance is simply one way to pay for health services (a way that has been enlarged mainly because of government interference). There are other ways. There are health savings accounts, and concierge medicine, and self-insuring, and paying cash.

He doesn’t look at the “less government interference options,” however; he thinks Obamacare simply doesn’t go far enough. My guess is what he wants is to have the federal government do a total takeover of health care, doling out care “equally.” He hates “inequity” (different outcomes) more than he loves freedom.

If the problem is separation of payer from service receiver, then why would adding government as an additional separator help? It just adds another layer of bureaucracy (the world’s biggest bureaucracy) between service receiver and payer—with all kinds of additional decisions being made by distant bureaucrats rather than patient and doctor.

People who see only the southern hemisphere—the portion on the Spherical Model where you go back and forth between the varied tyrannies of anarchy and government control—look the wrong direction. They have an unsupportable faith in government and its intellectual elites to “do it right the next time.” They never do it right. They can’t know what I and every individual buyer of health care services knows about our particular situations, preferences, and personal finances. But they’re unwilling to trust individuals to make decisions for themselves about what services to buy and how to pay for them.

Government’s lack of trust in individual citizens is an excuse for interference that always leads to further tyranny. We limit government because we know it can’t be trusted, and we trust ourselves with the rest. 

There’s another leap of logic story I came across over the weekend. It was handled well (as usual) by Matt Walsh (“I am afraid of this indisputable pro-choice argument” from March 4, 2014). The “frightening” “irrefutable” pro-choice (pro-abortion) argument is referred to as “bodily autonomy.” A reader calling herself “Rachel” says essentially that, if a person has bodily autonomy, then a woman has a right to stop that parasitic baby’s life at any point in pregnancy. She claims that a woman gestating her own child is equivalent to being forced to be tied up in a hospital bed next to a sick person, for nine months, sharing blood with the sick person, against one’s will.

It’s not a good analogy, and Matt Walsh covers the reasons. But I’m just going to point out the leap of logic from “we have control over our own bodies,” and “after consenting to the presence of a growing child by performing the procreative act, the mother should still be allowed to kill the growing baby at any point she chooses.” That’s quite a leap.

No one forced her (in cases that aren’t rape or incest) to invite the growing baby to grow in her womb. No one forced her to share her body with a stranger; the baby inside is her own offspring. No one forced her to stay confined in a hospital bed for nine months; pregnancy will cause varying levels of limitation, but most of the time the gestating mother just goes about her life as autonomously as ever.

The choice happens before conception. After that, another life is involved, growing where he/she was invited, and where he/she belongs. A closer analogy would be: after you invite someone into your home, at any time you can kill the visitor for breaking into your home. That would not go over well in a court of law.

We’re all pro-choice. But most of us think that choice was made when engaging in the behavior that has been known, for literally thousands of years, to lead to pregnancy—so ignorance can’t be the excuse. Maybe Rachel, like Obama, thinks God was wrong to have pregnancy follow that behavior, when she wants it without consequences. Whatever. She ought to take that up with God, rather than insisting that the rest of us are wrong for wanting to protect innocent human life.

Today's lesson: don't pretend it's logic when it's just a blind leap.

The Big 500th Celebration

 

Today is the 500^th post at the Spherical Model blog. Yay!!! (Balloons being dropped and confetti strewn as you read this. I can always vacuum later.)

It is also, coincidentally, approximately the 3^rd anniversary of the blog; that was officially March 4^th, but this 500^th milestone seemed close enough, I thought I’d wait and do both at the same time. The website, SphericalModel.com, is a few months older and has changed little; I’ve used the blog to add to the basic ideas.

Milestones are a good time to explain what the Spherical Model is. So here goes—again.

The Spherical Model is a different way of looking at the political world—different from the usual right-wing/left-wing model. In addition, the political world interrelates with the economic and social worlds, so the Spherical Model handles more ideas than the simple right/left arrow.

It works like this: think of a sphere, with freedom in the northern hemisphere, and tyranny in the southern hemisphere, so north is good and south is bad. (This relates in no way to actual places on our earth.) What about east and west, you ask? Good question. There isn’t a good-half/bad-half thing going on with east and west. It’s about level of interest, from the smallest unit of society, the family (furthest west longitude line), moving eastward to town/city, state/province, region, nation, multi-national allies, and reaching global interests at the far eastern longitude line. The caveat is, you need to be as local as possible for whatever issue is being addressed, or else there is loss of freedom (and therefore movement southward).

So it’s possible for there to be global issues, but they’re rare. And we tend to see a lot of national or state levels trying to usurp decision-making authority from the appropriate lower levels. Theoretically we could see a lower level insisting it is the appropriate level when a higher level actually is for fitting, but that’s more rare. And when there is such a disagreement, that’s when debate on issues should show up.

Just as you have freedom north and tyranny south for the political sphere, you have corresponding good north and bad south for the economic sphere: free enterprise economy north, and controlled economy south—which translates to prosperity north and poverty south.

You also have corresponding good north and bad south for the social sphere: civilization north, and savagery south.

All of these spheres interrelate. In other words, if you don’t do what it takes to sustain civilization, you suffer a loss of prosperity and a loss of freedom. If you strengthen civilization, that leads to greater freedom and prosperity as well. If you centralize decisions about who controls the spending of earned wealth, you affect freedom and civilization. For example, if either government or marauding gangs confiscate wealth from those who have earned it and redistribute it to those who haven’t earned it, workers are discouraged, feel enslaved, and feel hopeless.

What is the value of using this slightly more complicated model? For one thing you totally get rid of the accusation of being extremist just for wanting freedom, prosperity, and a thriving civilization. And you get rid of the notion that compromising in the middle, maybe just slightly toward the right, is sensible and logical. Because it is never a good thing to move south, and it is always a good thing to move north.

It doesn’t matter if an ideology is called socialism, communism, tyranny, dictatorship, anarchy, oligarchy, monarchy, or theocracy. All of these can be floating around below the equator. Location depends on the level of control (gang, state, nation, region—as is Axis of Evil—or global), and how much control. The more control, the further toward tyranny.

We don’t need to argue about whether “progressivism” is socialism by another name; we just need to look at how appropriate the level of interest (west/east), and how controlling the power center is.

If you’re conservative, you probably already believe much of what you’ll read here. The purpose is to give you new ways to evaluate ideas, candidates, issues, and policies—based on principles that are consistent and knowable. We can encourage policymakers to ask, “Does it lead toward more freedom, ensuring our inalienable rights?” “Does it lead to prosperity by encouraging free enterprise?” and “Does it lead to more thriving civilization by encouraging adherence to long-known good behaviors of religious people, and valuing the family as the basic unit of civilization?”

If you’d like to get a clearer understanding of the Spherical Model, I hope you’ll check out these sources:

Long Version: The Spherical Model website—a collection of long pieces describing the model and the three spheres, about 50 pages worth of writings.

Short Version: Blog post March 5, 2012: Year Two Begins, written for the one-year anniversary of the blog.

Best of the Blog: Collected links of blog posts most likely to give you additional understanding, offered as a celebration of the 400^th post, June 2013.

·         Part I covers the interrelationships of the three spheres, plus the Political Sphere.

·         Part II covers the Economic Sphere.

·         Part III covers the Social Sphere, or how to get to Civilization.

Special Topic Collections: These are additions to Best of the Blog, posts on specific issues that relate to the principles of going north on the sphere, but aren’t obviously related to a single sphere.

·         The Defense of Marriage Collection

·         The Education Collection

We’re a hundred posts beyond the Best of Blog collection. I hope there are now additional posts that should be favorites. They’re all available in the archives. I’m always honored whenever someone spends their time reading here. I hope you find the Spherical Model valuable in our joint efforts to have a world with more freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Those Pesky Enumerated Powers

I saw snippets of CPAC speeches from this past weekend. One was Texas Governor Rick Perry, talking about states experimenting to see what works—and the very clear evidence of what does work and what doesn’t, marked by how much more it costs to rent a truck to escape from California and come to Texas than the other way around. Where he really got my attention was toward the end (about 8 ½ minutes in) when he talks about enumerated powers.

It’s not too late for America to lead in the world, but it starts by leading at home. And it starts by returning to the founding principles of democracy, found in our Constitution. Among the enumerated powers of Congress are: the power to lay and collect taxes, to pay debts, and provide for the common defense, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy.

But nowhere does the Constitution say we should federalize classrooms. Nowhere! Nowhere does it give federal officials—nowhere does it give federal officials primary responsibility over the air we breathe, the land we farm, the water we drink. And nowhere does it say Congress has the right to federalize health care….

It is time for Washington to focus on the few things the Constitution establishes as the federal government’s role: defend our country, provide a cogent foreign policy. And, what the heck! Deliver the mail, preferably on time and on Saturdays. Get out of the health care business. Get out of the education business. Stop hammering industry. Let the sleeping giant of American enterprise create prosperity again.

You can watch the entire 11-minute speech here:

 

Governor Perry gives a good summary. But, for the sake of thorough exercise, let’s list the enumerated powers.

The Preamble to the Constitution is a good source for the purposes of delegating anything to the federal government. We’ll put this in bullet list form, to make it easier to see:

We the People of the United States, in

·         Order to form a more perfect Union,

·         establish Justice,

·         insure domestic Tranquility,

·         provide for the common defence,

·         promote the general Welfare,

·         and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Then the Constitution lays out the structure of the government to do those things. Most of these are spelled out in Article I, which says what the legislative body can and should do, and how the legislative powers are divided between two houses: the House directly responsive to the people by population, and the Senate designed to be responsive to the several states (although since 1913 also directly elected, but still numbered two per state, rather than by size of population).

In Section 8 of Article I there’s this great list of what the legislative branch can make laws to do (followed in Sections 9 and 10 with listed limitation). So, here are the enumerated powers of Congress:

1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2:  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

4:  To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5:  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6:  To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7:  To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8:  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9:  To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10:  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11:  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12:  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13:  To provide and maintain a Navy;

14:  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16:  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17:  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18:  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article II directs the select process for the executive branch, which is responsible for carrying out (executing) the laws legislated by Congress. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. He has the power to negotiate treaties with foreign nations (but can only make treaties with the approval of the legislative branch). Also with legislative approval, he can appoint ambassadors, consuls, and Supreme Court justices.

The president takes this oath:  “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” So here the Constitution restates the preservation of the basic law—the Constitution. Anything the president does that fails to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, pesky enumerated powers and all, and any purposeful failure to uphold the duly legislated laws is breaking that oath.

Article III covers the judicial branch, mainly the Supreme Court. Their cases concern mainly those to which the US itself is a party, and also disagreements between two or more states.

Article IV covers the concept of citizens receiving the same US citizen rights in the various states. That also means committing a felony in one state and fleeing to another state means you’re still subject to prosecution. There’s also something about how new states can be added, with equal standing among the older states. And here’s an interesting requirement: The federal government “shall protect each of them [the states] against Invasion.” Border security is required.

Article V covers amending the Constitution, which has been done only 27 times (which some might say is a few too many). The first 10 Amendments were included in the original ratification of the Constitution, often referred to as the Bill of Rights, which we’ll get to in a minute.

Articles VI and VII cover the treatment of existing debts, contracts, and treaties at the founding, and details concerning ratification.

So, then we get to the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments. Inalienable, God-given rights are not limited to these, but these are the ones the founders decided better be spelled out, in case a future time came when they were no longer self-evident. So these are specifically to let the federal government know—You Cannot Do This!

So what can the federal government not do?

·         Establish a state-favored religion

·         Limit the free exercise of religion

·         Limit freedom of speech

·         Limit freedom of the press

·         Limit the right to freely assemble

·         Limit the right to petition for redress of grievances (file lawsuits over government wrongdoing)

·         Infringe on individual right to bear arms

·         Force citizens to quarter soldiers

·         Search or seize property without probably cause shown by warrant

·         Put person on trial for felony without indictment by Grand Jury

·         Put person on trial for same offence again after being found not guilty (double jeopardy)

·         Force person to testify against themselves

·         Fail to provide an accused with swift justice (speedy and public trial by jury)

·         Right to jury trial for property disputes over a certain threshold

·         Inflict excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishments

·         Construe anything in the Constitution to take any additional rights from the people

·         Assume any power not spelled out in the Constitution, but assume those are left to the states and the people.

So those are the limits. We could easily add, under those last two, that the federal government cannot usurp the rights of parents, except in the extreme cases where there is immediate endangerment to the child (and that would be local and state governments, not federal in any case). Otherwise, parents have the right to make all decisions about the care, upbringing, and educating of their children.

So Governor Perry is right about the federal government needing to get its sticky hands out of education, out of health care, out of commerce—and anything else not specifically granted.

And the founders foresaw that there would be attempts at misconstruing. They were right. The commerce clause has been stretched beyond elasticity to mean the government can get involved anywhere there is or could be commerce, to the point of preventing home gardens if they think you could affect the market by not buying because you’ve grown your own. If the founders had meant the law to be that gaping, why write a limiting Constitution at all?

There’s misconstruing about the second amendment, because of that phrase about expecting people to be prepared to serve in a militia. So someone comes along and decides that means, if you’re not in a militia (and we don’t need those while we have standing armies), then you don’t need a gun—although maybe we’ll decide you can use one for hunting. No, the founders knew that granting the right to protect us did not give up our right to individually protect ourselves.

Then there’s misconstruing the freedom of religion—so that it limits expression of religion, as if the first amendment said, “Government shall not allow any public expression of religion, because not all people believe the same, and some could be offended.” It’s just the opposite. The amendment guarantees our rights to worship our own way, without government deciding what to allow (within the limits of accepted law—no child sacrifice, for example). So when the government says a person must go against their own conscience, that is simply tyranny.

Governor Perry was right about one additional thing as well: once a person gets power, it’s human nature to try to keep it. So now that so many powers have been usurped—taken unconstitutionally—how do we get them back as a people? The written law is on our side, but not the law enforcers.

Gov. Perry suggests electing a better president (it would be hard to elect a worse one), and elect leaders who understand limited government and want that. I think he’s right that electing the right leaders is important. But I don’t know if that will be enough. He started his speech quoting Thomas Jefferson as saying, “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” Which sounds extra nice with a Texas accent.

Nevertheless, the kind of rebellion we need is one of hearts and minds, not might. We need every elected leader from president to county clerk to know and understand the Constitution, and the principles of limited government. We get that by sharing what we know with more and more thinking, caring citizens. And then we pray it will be enough. We have a long road back up to freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

 

Remembering the Alamo

Today marks the day of the siege on the Alamo, March 6, 1836, when a few dozen Texans held off 5000 Mexican military—long enough for General Sam Houston to gather troops and win the war for independence a month and a half later. It was a sacrifice, but it wasn’t a lost cause. The standoff lasted from February 23 to March 6, some thirteen days by the time the Mexican Army went ahead with the take-no-prisoners attack (there were survivors, about a dozen noncombatants, mainly women and children).

The Alamo (image from Wikipedia)

Texas is a great state for history. We’ve got colorful things worth remembering and retelling. My daughter-in-law (Mrs. Political Sphere) comes from a little town west of Houston that was started by Father of Texas Stephen F. Austin, laid out by Gail Borden (who invented Borden sweetened condensed milk, and also a surveying method he used to make a living). This little town, San Felipe (pronounced by those who live there as San Phillip, or sometimes by others as San Phillipee) was mostly abandoned in what was known as the Runaway Scrape, with citizens freeing before the Mexican Army. A brief battle took place there. They still tell their local stories, even though it wasn’t a major part of the Texas war for independence.

Stephen F. Austin
(image from Wikipedia)

Mexico had a constitution, a written law that guaranteed citizens certain rights. But Santa Anna had taken over as dictator, disregarding the limitations in the law. Stephen F. Austin had gone to Mexico’s capitol to talk through the issues, and form a new state where the laws would be respected. Rather than having the opportunity to voice his complaints, representing his people, and work toward solutions, Austin was labeled an insurrectionist, placed in a dungeon too small to stand or stretch out, where he was held for eight months, being released in August 1835. At this point he returned to find the colonists on the verge of rebellion, and he let them know he now believed they were beyond negotiating with the tyranny of Santa Anna. It was time to fight for their freedom from the tyranny of Mexico.

The bad treatment in the prison deteriorated his health, leading to his death following a bad cold, in December 1836, just a half a year after Texas won independence.

Back to the Alamo. During the rebellion, the war for independence, Presidente Santa Anna moved his troops from city to city to quell the insurrection. The Alamo was an old mission, outside San Antonio (it’s right in the middle of downtown San Antonio today, since the city has grown around it), that could be used as a fortress. Colonel William B. Travis, assigned to lead the troops there, knew he couldn’t hold off the huge Mexican Army. But he also knew that he needed to detain that army as long as possible.

Just four days earlier (March 2, 1836, at Washington-on-the-Brazos, a long two-day’s horse ride from the Alamo) Texas had signed its Declaration of Independence from Mexico. And General Sam Houston was moving through the settlers to build up an army from among the Texians (the settlers that had immigrated from the United States) and the Tejanos (the ethnic Mexicans living in that region). He needed as much time as he could get.

Texas Declaration of Independence
(image from Wikipedia)

A Facebook friend quoted today a historical retelling of the Alamo from Bill Bennett’s American Patriot's Almanac, that I’d like to re-post here:

Storm winds of tyranny blew across Texas in early 1836. In those days the region was a part of Mexico, where General Santa Anna had seized power and made himself dictator. Texans weren’t willing to submit to his rule, so Santa Anna marched north with an army.

In San Antonio a small band gathered to make their stand at the Alamo, an old Spanish mission turned into a fort. They were tough characters, men who had settled a wild frontier. With them was the famous Davy Crockett from Tennessee.

The Mexican army arrived and demanded the Alamo’s surrender. The Texans answered with a cannon shot. Santa Anna ordered a red flag raised, a signal meaning “We will take no prisoners.”

Colonel William Travis, commander of the Alamo, dispatched messengers bearing appeals for reinforcements. “Our flag still waves proudly from the walls,” he wrote. “I shall never surrender nor retreat . . . Victory or death!”

Only 32 men made their way through the enemy lines to join the Texans at the Alamo. That brought the number of defenders to about 189. The Mexican army, meanwhile, swelled to perhaps 5,000.

Legend says that Travis called his men together, drew a line in the dust with his sword, and announced that those who wanted to stay and fight should step over the line. Every man but one crossed over.

The attack came early the next morning, on March 6, 1836. For a while, the Texans managed to hold the Mexican army back, but soon Santa Anna’s soldiers swarmed over the walls. All of the Alamo’s defenders were killed.

The Texans weren’t finished. On April 21, troops commanded by Sam Houston attacked and broke Santa Anna’s army. “Remember the Alamo!” was their battle cry—a cry that still reminds Americans of unyielding courage and sacrifice for freedom.

 

That April 21^st defeat, at San Jacinto, just east of present-day Houston, took only 18 minutes. Houston comparatively small army took the Mexican troops by surprise. The tyrant Santa Ana was among the captives, dressed as just one of the men, trying to avoid notice, ignominious and cowardly. When discovered, he was forced by Sam Houston to officially declare Texas’s victory in its war for independence, and then he was allowed to return to Mexico to continue his cowardly tyranny there.

It takes bravery and sacrifice to secure liberty. And tyrants are generally found to be cowards and bullies when confronted with bravery. That’s something to remember in the never-ending battle between tyranny and freedom.

Platform Propositions

Tomorrow is the primary vote in Texas. That means it is also the day of precinct meetings; people go back to their precinct’s voting place after the polls close, and meet at the grassroots level. The people there choose delegates to attend the county/district convention. (Harris County is big enough to hold several state senatorial districts, so we hold district conventions.) The other matter of business is to propose content for the party platform.

Some version of this pattern happens in every state. So I thought it would be worth going over my suggestions for propositions to present at a precinct meeting.

The starting place is the existing platform, which you can probably find with an online search. The Texas GOP platform is not in bad shape right now. There have been past precinct meetings where I had plenty of input I wanted to see there. This time I’m fairly content with what’s there—with the addition of some specifics that haven’t been handled.

My son Political Sphere thinks platforms should be very short—principles only. Otherwise, holding candidates to agree is impossible and undoable. There’s too much to keep track of. And he’s probably right. But, dealing with the way things are, we can at least add our input to what’s going to be there.

I do like the first page of the 2012 platform. There’s a preamble and a list of principles. That single page probably does meet Political Sphere’s suggestion:

PREAMBLE

We STILL hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The embodiment of the conservative dream in America is Texas. Throughout the world people dare to dream of freedom and opportunity. The Republican Party of Texas unequivocally defends that dream. We strive to preserve the freedom given to us by God, implemented by our Founding Fathers, and embodied in the Constitution. We recognize that the traditional family is the strength of our nation. It is our solemn duty to protect life and develop responsible citizens. We understand that our economic success depends upon free market principles. If we fail to maintain our sovereignty, we risk losing the freedom to live these ideals.

PRINCIPLES

We, the 2012 Republican Part of Texas, believe in this platform and expect our elected leaders to uphold these truths through acknowledgement and action. We believe in:

1.      Strict adherence to the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

2.      The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.

3.      Preserving American and Texas Sovereignty and Freedom.

4.      Limiting government power to those items enumerated in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

5.      Personal Accountability and Responsibility.

6.      Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage of a natural man and a natural woman.

7.      Having an educated population, with parents having the freedom of choice for the education of their children.

8.      Americans having the right to be safe in their homes, on their streets, and in their communities, and the unalienable right to defend themselves.

9.      A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.

10.  Honoring all of those that serve and protect our freedom.

11.  “The laws of nature and nature’s God” as our Founding Fathers believed.

Then there are 21 more pages of specifics. Statements come under these headings:

·        PRESERVING AMERICAN FREEDOM—including 3 pages on limiting government, plus more on the judiciary, election integrity, and symbols of America’s heritage.

·        STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH—including a lot on protecting marriage and life.

·        EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN—emphasizing local control and choice.

·        PROMOTING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL SAFETY—emphasizing self-defense, religious liberties, and privacy issues.

·        STRENTHENING THE ECONOMY—Before subheadings is a restatement of the GOP platform of 1932, worth noting, because it still seems timely today:

Whereas, constructive plans for financial stabilization cannot be completely organized until our national State and municipal governments not only balance their budgets but curtail their current expenses as well to a level which ca be steadily and economically maintained for some years to come.

We urge prompt and drastic reduction of public expenditure and resistance to every appropriation not demonstrably necessary to the performance of government, national or local.

The Republican Party established and will continue to uphold the gold standard and will oppose any measure which will undermine the government’s credit or impair the integrity of our national currency Relief by currency inflation is unsound in principle and dishonest in results. The dollar is impregnable in the marts of the world today and must remain so. An ailing body cannot be cured by quack remedies. This is no time to experiment upon the body politic or financial.

·        DEFENDING SOVEREIGNTY AT HOME AND ABROAD—emphasizing Texas sovereignty, military strength, immigration, and foreign policy.

So, if you’re satisfied, great. If you see something that needs change, offer a suggestion. There’s a formal way this is done in a meeting—but don’t get too caught up in formalities. This is Texas, where the Texas Declaration of Independence (celebrated yesterday, March 2^nd) was signed in an uncomfortable wood cabin, where nobody wanted to stay longer than absolutely necessary. And Texans are still about getting it done, and worrying about cleaning up the formalities later.

The formal way is to bring four copies: one for yourself, one for the precinct chair’s files, one for the Resolution Committee for consideration at the district meeting if passed, and one for the meeting secretary to include in the minutes. You use formal wording: “Whereas…, and Whereas…, Therefore, it is proposed ….” The purpose is to give the reasons for the suggested change to the existing platform, and then present the proposed change.

But I’ve noticed a much more direct wording in the platform over the last decade. And you can offer the proposition with just the plain words you want the platform to say. In other words, direct is also acceptable. I’ve even seen small, relatively informal precinct meetings where the group discusses an issue and then someone writes out the suggestion on a piece of paper. And they edit from there until there’s wording the group agrees either to accept or reject. If accepted, by majority, it gets sent on to the district level platform committee; the district offers it’s suggestions to the state platform committee, and a final version gets voted on at the state convention.

I’ve had wording I’ve presented at my precinct end up in the district version. That feels empowering to a grassroots sort of worker.

So, below are some of my suggestions. Feel free to copy and use at your own precinct meeting, or be inspired to write your own. Do what you feel confident you can defend in a meeting. And expect alterations, either in your precinct meeting or at the next level up. In other words, don’t have to worry too much about legal wording.

My concerns this year are mainly 10^th Amendment prevention of federal usurpation of authority. 

Rejecting Obamacare

Whereas Texas rejects the federal government’s edict that free Texas citizens buy specific healthcare products through the so-called Affordable Care Act, and

Whereas Texans are forced to pay significantly higher federal taxes for this rejected edict,

Therefore it is proposed that Texans be given an exemption from paying the percentage of their federal taxes that would have gone to this rejected requirement. 

[Straightforward version: Texans should not be forced to pay, whether through taxes or other requirements, anything toward Obamacare, which is a program Texas rejects as beyond federal authority. So Texas will support Texas citizens in non-payment of that portion of federal taxes, and will pursue state solutions to protect Texans from federal coercion to pay.]

 

Rejecting Federal Department of Education

Whereas Texans believe strongly in local control of education, and

Whereas the US Constitution does not authorize federal interference in state and local education,

Therefore, it is proposed that Texas reject tax money going to a federal department of education, and supports non-payment of that portion of federal taxes that would go toward this rejected department. 

[Straightforward version: Texas supports the dissolution of the federal department of education, which has no basis in the US Constitution. Therefore, Texas will support Texas citizens in non-payment of that portion of federal taxes that would go to this rejected department, and Texas will pursue state solutions to protect Texans from federal coercion to pay.] 

Protecting Our Border

Whereas protecting international borders is a responsibility of the federal government, and

Whereas the federal government has failed to use funding provided by Congress for the purpose of protecting the Texas’s southern border, and

Whereas Texas will protect our international border, rather than allow the dangers of failure to protect, and

Whereas the cost of performing the US responsibilities of border protection are significant, and

Whereas getting costs reimbursed is difficult, inefficient, and unfair to Texas,

Therefore it is proposed that the cost of protecting the border be held in Texas, through withholding of that portion of federal tax payments, or other state solutions. 

[Straightforward version: Since the federal government has failed to protect Texas’s international border, and Texas must protect its own border, Texas can withhold payment for that portion of defense from being sent to the federal government.] 

Immigration Reform

Whereas the federal government has failed repeatedly to secure the international southern border, and

Whereas the southern border is a risk for infiltration of such evils as drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism, and violent crime, in addition to the societal costs of non-violent illegal aliens, and

Whereas the federal government has failed to uphold current immigration laws, and

Whereas the federal government has failed to improve and streamline immigration processes,

Therefore it is proposed that no discussion of immigration reform can be considered until after the federal government has proved good faith by meeting its current obligations to secure the border and enforce existing immigration laws. 

[Straightforward version: The federal government has failed to show good faith in discussions related to border security and immigration, so until the border is secure and current laws are consistently enforced, Texas is against any further discussions on immigration reform.]

 Defense of Marriage

Whereas Texas has the right to define terms used in legal contracts recognized by the state, and

Whereas Texas has always had a specific definition for marriage requiring the contract be considered permanent and exclusive between a man and a woman, and

Whereas Texas has reinforced this longstanding definition through legislation and Constitutional Amendment, and

Whereas any other definition of marriage is likely to harm families and children, and also religious liberty,

Therefore Texas rejects the imposition of any other definition of marriage by federal entities or other states, and considers any attempt to impose any other definition a direct attack on Texas’s sovereignty, which will be rejected. 

[Straightforward version: Texas continues to assert its sovereign right to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and rejects imposition of any other definition by federal entities or other states.]