Got this in an email......

The top car pool

An Open Letter to the United States Senators of the 111th Congress.

Honorable Senator,

This open letter is addressed to Senators who believe their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America is above party politics, personal prestige, or career advancement.

Once again a few men and women stand upon a pivot of history. Once again a mere handful will determine the fate of nations and people. This time the burden falls on your shoulders, the decisions you make in the next two years will determine whether the Constitution of the United States of America stands, or is irreparably changed.

You, a United States Senator sought high office. You took an oath to uphold, defend, and protect the ideals set forth in the Constitution. You’ve chosen this place and time to serve, history and posterity calls you now to do your sworn duty.

President Elect Obama and the Democrat party have set forth the agenda. Many parts of this agenda are not only in direct opposition to the Constitution, they undermine the spirit, values, and intent of the Constitution.

It is your sworn duty to stand in opposition to this agenda. This agenda is an assault on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The assault on our foundational rights includes but is not limited to direct legislative, administrative and judicial restrictions on the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.

Sen. Charles Schumer

“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man...Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech, a thing terrible to public traitors. It has been for some time a question with me, whether a commonwealth suffers more by the hypocritical pretenders to religion or by the openly profane?... Some late thoughts of this nature have inclined me to think that the hypocrite is the most dangerous person of the two, especially if he sustains a post in the government...They take him for a saint and pass him for one, without considering that they are (as it were) the instruments of public mischief out of conscience, and ruin their country for God's sake."

Ben Franklin

President Elect Obama through a spokesperson has stated his opposition to the “Fairness Doctrine” however he does promote other regulatory restriction on other mediums of speech. Many of the Democratic leadership have expressed support for the “Fairness Doctrine” and the intent to bring it to the floor in the next congress, especially with the election of a Democrat President. His early appointment of Henry Rivera, an avid advocate of the “Fairness Doctrine” indicates the direction the Administration is headed in.

The “Fairness Doctrine” is patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367) ruled at the time the Doctrine did not violate the 1st Amendment. However they did rule that if the Doctrine ever did restrain speech the constitutionality should be reconsidered. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, (418 U.S. 241) ruled the Doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.” This inescapably dampening of speech is a defacto abridgement of speech.

The Founding Fathers realized that as long as the people had a voice, could speak out, could voice all opinions with out repercussions that the openness benefited all. It is when this voice is stifled, restricted, limited, when the people have no outlet for their concerns that eventually alternative methods of seeking a voice is sought.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In 1996 President Elect Obama answering a question from the Independent Voters of Illinois:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. Ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. Mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

"US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"

Diane Feinstein 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

Samuel Adams,

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson

President Elect Obama has publicly stated he can’t confiscate the people’s arms because he does not have the votes. The only thing that now keeps him from having the votes is those of you in the Senate that will stand with the Constitution. The President Elect’s party has a long history of passing legislation that in small incremental steps infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S (2008) affirmed this right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The right is not collective, limit to a militia. Some of the Justice disagreed with this point, which is made clear not only in the language of the Constitution, but in the supporting writings and words of the Framers. President Elect Obama’s appointments to the court will likely mirror the minority opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right, not an individual right.

Attacks on the peoples right to defend their sovereignty and maintain the consent of the governed takes many forms. Out right un-constitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, the use of onerous “reasonable restrictions” in the name of public safety, excessive taxation on arms and supplies. All aimed and limited the right of the people to defend themselves and maintain liberty.

The first amendments primary purpose, the very reason the Founding Fathers including it is to preserve for eternity the sovereignty of the individual and the consent of the governed. The final check on tyranny is an armed population. This is not a call for insurrection. It is what the Founding Fathers put in place to preserve the right of the people to resist tyranny. The Founders placed the peoples right to preserve liberty not on the good will of the government or at the pleasure of powers and potentates. The Founders placed the power to preserve liberty directly, purposely in the hands of the people, in the form of arms.

Taxation:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

11th Amendment

President Elect Obama in a well-publicized conversation with a citizen said he would “spread the wealth around.”

"It's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut,"

Sen. Joseph Biden

Economist Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University has shown that in 1970, when the highest tax rate was 70%, the top 1% shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Today the top tax rate is 35% and the same class of taxpayers pays a whopping 39% of the burden. The worst way to “soak the rich,” Mr. Hubbard finds, is to raise tax rates.

The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys.

Thomas Jefferson

John Locke wrote of Life, Liberty and Property. That from the right to Life flowed Liberty, living life to suit oneself. From Liberty flows the opportunity through ones own labor, the ability and initiative of the individual to acquire property. Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of independence extended property to pursuit of happiness, the existential pursuit that does not directly produce property. Jefferson did not excluded property; he expanded Locke’s vision to include all the endeavors of the human mind and spirit.

Nowhere in the Constitution is “fairness” a guarantee, what is in the Constitution is equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal treatment. The Constitution guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

“Spread the Wealth” is merely “from each according to ability, to each according to need” rephrased to be more palatable. It is all the same, taking by force of government the fruit of labor of one individual and giving it to another. Such a concept is nowhere in the Constitution. The Founders would have found idea abhorrent.

The Constitution and Framers did see the need for necessary taxation for the common good. Where the tax levied was used to benefit all equally. All citizens benefit from the security provided by the national defense, all of us benefit from infrastructure paid for with taxes. Taking from one and giving to another, harms one, benefits another, and in the harms the initiative of all. Why sweat, labor and toil to produce something, that when successful will only result in the confiscation of the property so intensely brought forth by the individual?

Spreading the wealth violates the right to Property, since Property flows from Liberty, the right to Liberty is violated and ultimately the right to Life itself is violated by take from the individual property they have spent a portion of their Life acquiring.

Judiciary:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section II

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.

Barack Obama on WEBZ in 2001.

The Judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78 (465)

This portion of the agenda requires the appointment of judges who view the Constitution as an impediment to the progressive agenda, not a foundational document against which all law is tested.

The judges that President Elect Obama is on record as seeking will fundamentally alter the meaning of our founding documents. The effect of these changes is that rights established as inalienable and untouchable by governments or other men, will be allowed by, administered through, and granted at the whim of those currently in power. Our fundamental rights are not arbitrary or with in the province of the government. They must at all costs remain forever, inalienable.

President Elect Obama’s nomination if he follows his on the record statements will be the type to make radical changes to the interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate has the duty to advise the President on his choices, and then to consent to them. Your first duty as Senators is to uphold the Constitution. Duty requires that you advise the President not to send forth for nomination judicial nominees who would make wholesale changes to the Constitution. Duty also requires that you block such a nominee if they are sent to the Senate for confirmation.

Security of our rights, equitable taxation for the common good, the right of self defense against tyranny, and freedom of speech, These were the keys to the foundation and formation of our government, the consent of the governed, and the insurance and security of these invaluable rights. The incoming executive branch and congressional majority are on record and have in the past taken steps, proposed legislation, and announced the intent to irrecoverable alter these basic ideas at the foundation of our Republic.

With he structure of our government it falls to a minority in the Senate, the handful who understand and believe such changes to the core of our Republic is unwise, and a violation of our core principals as a people and nation. It is far easier for the Senate to stop these changes, than for them to be reversed at a later date.

The time as come. Your choice, and the course of human events has placed you at the critical position for the up coming events.

On July 2, 1863 Col. Joshua Chamberlain was on the extreme flank of the Union Army, Chamberlain knew if his line were breached, the entire Union Army at Gettysburg would be at risk of being routed. He and his men were exhausted, thirsty, and nearly out of ammunition, Chamberlain ordered his men to fix bayonets and charged. He secured the flank, and ended that threat to the Army. Chamberlain considers only one thing, not career, not reputation, not even personal safety. He considered only his duty, which at that moment was to hold the flank.

The Senators of the 111th Congress now stand at the end of line. Political forces are attempting to flank the Constitution and our very liberty is at risk.

The question is will you, A United States Senator do you duty disregarding the risks and uphold your sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?

Realwest requested this image go online. Photoshop by another LGF Lizard.

Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect.

On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO₂), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%.

The above quote is a synopsis of Global Warming from Wikipedia.

First let me define two terms for this essay; Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), simply that human activity is causing a rise and Climate Change (CC) normal cyclic climate variations.

Many claim the matter settled and AGW is a settled scientific fact, that major economic and social disruptions are going to occur if AGW is not stopped and reversed. AGW is a major political issue of our time. It is driving candidates, politicians and policy. It has become heretical in some circles to question AGW.

I question AGW and here is why.

First temperature rise, how much over how much time? The above Wikipedia article claims 0.74° C over the last century. When you claim a rise in measurement the assumption in the statement is the baseline is stable. That all that is being measured is the rise, and all other factors are accounted for.

There is an issue with temperature measurements. There appears to other contributing factors to the measured temperature rise. This principle in scientific measurements; isolation of variables, accounting for all the factors in a measurement. Only, and only when you can account for all the other factors, can you claim to have made an accurate measurement.

Surface temperature measurements are made in white boxes with slotted panels set up on a stand called a Stevenson Screens. Stevenson Screens are required to be setup to certain requirements. These requirements are intended to isolate as much possible the screen from local environmental variables.

There are two issues with the screens; location and paint.

The paint has been changed over the years from plain old white wash to a variety of white paints. However the heat absorbtion of the new paints compared to white wash is unknown, and there is no standards for heat absoption characteristics of the paints used.

We all know how different the temperature can be between under the tree in the front yard and on the roof, as much 20° or more difference on the same day at the same time. Which temperature is the “real” temperature for that time on that day? That is the purpose of the Steveneson Screen, establish a reliable means of measuring an average temperature.

Problem is Stevenson Screens are on roofs, next to parking lots, under air conditioners. All this would contribute to false higher temperature readings. Remember we are talking about 0.74° C over a century, the type of errors that misplacement of the screens cause is an order of magnitude higher than the claim of AGW.

Second problem with surface temperature measurements is the urban heat island effect. Concentrations of people, structures and paving generate and retain heat at higher rates than unpopulated areas. The temperature measurement stations 50 years ago were farther from urban areas than now. The urban area has engulfed the stations and with it a corresponding rise in temperature.

This type of issue would not be a problem if research measures the local effects, and correct the readings for effect. They have not done this. The are including the effects of a temperature station on the roof, next to a parking lot, in an urban area into the overall global rise in temperature. That is just plain bad science. Just this error in temperature measurement should be enough, by itself and on the face of to disqualify all claims of AGW.

But that is not all.

They’re in essentially three sets of atmospheric temperature measurements. Surface, balloon and satellite. One would reasonable expect that if global warming were occurring all measurements would show a similar rise in temperature. They don’t only surface temperature shows rises. The balloon and satellite measurements show no rise. With the issues of surface temperature measurements detail above the lack of rise in other sets of measurements by other means further calls into question the claim of AGW.

Those famous and oft used evidence for AGW is the Hockey Stick Chart, showing temperature over that last centuries, with a sharp, dramatic increase in the last 50 years. This Hockey Stick chart was generated by Mann. Simply put the Hockey Sticky chart is a fraud, a hoax. Mann altered not only the data, but the method of anaylsis to generate the “hockey stick.”

So far; the source of the increase in measured temperature is subject to unaccouted for outside influence when other atomsphereic measurements have not show the same increase. The chart cited most often to support AGW is a fraud with manipulated data and analysis.

This alone should be enough for anyone to go question the entire premise of AGW. But we are not yet done.

The claim of proponents of AGW is that humans are putting more CO₂ than ever before. This increase of in the amount of atomsphereic CO₂ is driving the global temperature increase. The foremost adovocate of AGW Al Gore in his film Inconvient Truth charts the relationship of CO₂ and temperature with a dramatic graphing of the two trends. Very nice, very compelling, and also completely wrong.

Gore’s uses data from a source known as the Vostok Ice Core. Antartic ice in some areas does not melt year to year it therefore contains minute samples of air in tiny bubbles from each year going back 400,000 years. The ratios of gases and isotopes can tell scientists much about atmospheric conditions in that year including amount of CO₂ and temperature.

What is the problem you ask? The data Gore uses does not show what Gore claims, that CO₂ increase before temperature increase. In fact the data show just the opposite, CO₂ increase lag behind temperature increases. Since CO₂ rises after temperature it cannot au priori be the driver of global temperature rises.

To add to the problems with the theory of AGW NASA recently announced that it had adjusted the temperature record due to some miscalculations. According to NASA the ’30s are now the warmest recent period not the ‘90s. How is the problem for AGW advocates? AGW theory claims human activity is cause the current increase in global temperature. There are two major anomalies in the record that run counter to that claim. The 30’s was the depression era when vast sections of the economy and industry where idled, yet it was the warmest period of the century. Conversely the post WWII era was a boom time… and global temperatures dropped.

To review AGW; is the claim that human activity producing CO₂ is causing the global temperature to rise.

I contend there are two many unresolved issues to make that claim:
· Actual temperature rise measurements are subject to unaccounted influences.
· The primarily used analysis show the increase in temperature is fraudulent.
· Analysis of the historical record show CO₂ trails temperature.
· The link between human activity and temperature rise has two significant disconnects in the 20th century.

These issues need to resolved before AGW can be taken seriously, and definitively laid to rest before large sums of money and social changes required to combat a highly questionable theory.

I am not merely going to cast stones at AGW, there is an alternate explanation.

CC is a real phenomenon, the climate in continual flux, climate is not static. We may very well be, and most likely are in a warming period. The closest correlated data to the historical temperature trends is solar activity. The sun also has cyclic patterns and the amount of energy output varies so the amount of energy put into the earths climate varies. In fact the overwhelming majority if not the only source of energy for climate activities is the sun.

A slight rise in solar output would provide more energy into the climate system with a noticeable increase in temperature. This theory also provides an explanation for the increase in CO₂ that follows temperature increases. Ocean water warms as average temperatures increase; warming liquids hold less dissolved gas than cold liquids. CO₂ gas would be released into the atmosphere as temperature rises.

The solar output theory of CC does not require explanation or development of previously undiscovered mechanism for the data and theory to mesh.

When Occam’s Razor is applied to the competing theories only one theory passes the test.

LIFE, LIBERTY & PROPERTY

Core Conservatism.

All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.

John Locke

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

Frederic Bastiat

Life:

In the 18th century the notion that the individual had the right to their own life came to the forefront of political discourse. Previously a persons' life could be subject and controlled by others; kings, potentates, owners, thugs, anyone willing to use force to impose their will on others.

I am not going to reiterate the milestones that brought us to this conclusion, nor will I state all the arguments, reasons, for this conclusion.

At this point in social development it should be an au priori argument. A settled matter for Western Civilization. I offer the contrast with our current conflict, the enemies of Western Civilization who do not hold the same fundamental viewpoint. They believe they are arbiters of the Will of Allah and thus can deprive others of life based on their interpretation of Allah's Will, they even believe the deaths of innocent civilians, women and children in the pursuit of Allah's Will is right and good.

I bring in the contrast to make the point if in our discussion we can't agree on this fundamental right, then the rest of the arguments are moot. Without the inalienable, intrinsic right to life, the rest of it: Liberty, Property, Happiness, Consent of the governed: None of is significant, none of it matters. When the individual can arbitrarily be deprived of life, how can there be Liberty and the rest? Without this cornerstone it all crumbles into chaos, barbarism, and rule of force.

This point, this right, is the product of 6000 years of social and religious history. It has taken the blood of countless numbers to establish the fact. Our own Revolutionary War, Civil war, World War I, World War II, Korean, Vietnam , Gulf War I and the current War are all rooted in preserving this simple, profound, ideal. Unfortunately this recognition of the right of life is not the natural state of man, it is the realization of enlightened man of a fundamental truth.

A persons' life is their own.

That said, let me state that I am currently discussing the individual, I am not yet going to add the complexities of society and governance of society. We must first come to an understanding of foundational principals. Then upon that foundation when can discuss what happens when the spheres of the individual interact, that those interaction creates societies and governments to regulate the interaction between individuals.

However you want to attribute the source, either divine or other. People have an intrinsic, innate and inviolate right to their own life.

This right is the first block in not only modern Western civilization, the cornerstone of conservative principals.

Liberty:

Lib·er·ty (l_b'_r-t_)
n., pl. -ties.
1) The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3) The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.
4) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
5) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Liberty; the individual living life meeting the definition above. The simplest approach is that since we have granted the individuals' right to life, does it not follow that the right to live that life in whatever manner is the prerogative of the individual? Any answer other than the affirmative would by necessity bringing us back to examine the first question.

Living this life, in Liberty as an individual, sovereign with no other controlling authority follows the same historical route as the right to life, for one flows logically into the other. If you have the right to your life without interference, therefore you also have the right to live that life with out interference.

Again I remind you that we are talking about a lone individual, the solitary individual without regard to the interaction with others. We be bring the interactions between individuals to the discussion after we lay the foundation to build those interactions upon.

Once again I will not "prove" the individuals right to Liberty, or show the historical, philosophical, legal stepping stones to the acceptance in Western Civilization of the concept of individual Liberty. If we cannot agree to this concept of individual Liberty we are in far greater peril from that than any external threat.

Property: and subsequent Pursuit Happiness.

Property is Life, Life is Property.

The two are interchangeable, and synonymous.

How can I say that? Take our lone individual to whom we have granted Life and Liberty. Put in a place where he can obtain all he needs to survive. This individual then uses wood and stone to build a shelter, domesticates livestock, harvests grains and fruits in his vicinity. The shelter, livestock and food stocks are property obtain by the individual using his intellect and spending time and effort, a portion of his life to gather the property.

In society we use the medium of exchange, money, to convert life to property. The individual works for a period of time, exchanging a portion of his life with an employer for money; the money is then exchanged for property. Conversely we can reverse the equation, exchange property for time. Most commonly leisure time, time not caring for the necessities, using previously acquired property in exchange for time to do other things we also exchange money with others to get them to do things for us.

Responsibility of our solitary, non-societal individual. Please pay careful attention to the responsibility of this individual. There is no one to provide this individual anything. He must use his time, a portion of his lifespan to provide the necessities of life. This responsibility is not lost upon moving into a society.

The right to property is the most difficult for some. This difficulty is rooted the "zero sum" fallacy. The false idea that there is a finite amount of property to be had. This leads to the conclusion that if one person has a lot, it was gained at the expenses of others. The truth is property is created when an individual uses his time to create it. This is clearest with intellectual property, a book, and a song a product purely of the mind. Bill Gates is worth in the neighborhood of $50 billion dollars, that was created out of nothing, no ore was mined, no crop sowed and harvested, no natural material was used in the creation of his property. The wealth of Bill and Microsoft is demonstrably created, not taken from another person. It also applies to resources. Resources are essentially useless in situ, iron ore is just rock until people over time applied intellect and time to figuring out how to extract metal from rock and make useful items.

Given that property is the result of the expenditure of the individuals' life in exchange for the property and we agree that the individual has full right to life and liberty what other conclusion can there be but the individual has full right also over the property acquired in this manner?

Logically there can be no other conclusion. When we grant the right to life, what follows is the right to live that life, and what ever is produced by that life must be the property of the individual living that life.

If as some will claim the individual does not have the right all to the product of his life, they are claiming some portion of that individuals life, and subsequently can ultimately lay claim to the life of another person, traditionally this is called slavery.

Pursuit of Happiness recognizes that not all seek property, or wealth. That some individuals seek no temporal rewards, either in charitable efforts, pursuit of religious enlightenment, or personal fulfillment in arts, academic and intellectual efforts. Realizing however that pursuit of happiness does in no way relive the individual of personal responsibility for their own welfare.

Individual Sovereignty:

The individual with complete right to life liberty and property is wholly sovereign over their person and property

The concept of Individual Sovereignty is so basic in Western Civilization that it should be accepted as dogma.

Dogma;

noun:
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

The authority in the case is society; the principle has been laid down over the last 6000 years of social development. This concept should be taken as dogma, as incontrovertibly true; yet in western society this principle is under attack, not from outside, but from members of our own society.

Individual Sovereignty based on Life, Liberty, Property is the bedrock conservative principle, it is from this concept, this idea that the rights of individual derive. All the principles of conservatism are built on this foundational philosophy.

Individual sovereignty, and the rights based on this principle are under attack. From what you eat, to what you can do, when you can do it is under attack. Unless the fractions of society can agree to a few core, shared principles, that society has no common ground for surviving.

Consent of the Governed:

So far I have laid down the argument for individual sovereignty for the lone person. However when we have two people their spheres of sovereignty are bound to overlap and conflict. The result is a loss of sovereignty for the weaker individual. We know from human history that given the opportunity for one individual to take from another instead of producing on their own is highly likely and commonplace. It is imperative for us to recognize the baser instincts of an individual is to take the route to barbarism and take property, liberty and life from weaker individuals to enrich themselves. The entire history of man is the struggle between his higher nature, seeking life and liberty, and easier path, barbarism seeking power and wealth at the expense of others. That individual sovereignty has only been the prevalent philosophical thought in the last 250 years, and only dominated in forms of government in the last 50 years is testament to the bitterness of the struggle and the tendencies of human nature. Make no mistake eternal vigilance is the price of liberty if you learn only one lesson from history learn this one: This concept of Life, Liberty and Property can only be maintained at great effort and cost. Respecting the Life, Liberty and Property of other individuals is not nor will it ever be the natural state of man.

Society is in essence a convention between people on how to balance the tension between individuals and the needs of society for a peaceable existence. Place two sovereign individuals in a valley and tension will arise over resources. Society arises in order to govern the competing needs and desires of those two individuals.

The key to this society of two is that they must mutually agree to the covenants of the society. The consent to be govenered by rules set forth for their society. As long as they both uphold the rules of the society, the society will function. When one breaks the rules, there must be consequences to the violation of societal rules; otherwise there is no society.

We can add as many individuals to this society as we want. Membership in a legitimate, functioning society is voluntary, the individual may leave at anytime when they no longer feel the society meets their needs. The individuals within the society consent to the governance, and the society meets its obligations under known and understood terms.

Consent of the Governed is larger concept than a particular administration. Here in the US we consent to a government of a Representative Republic in which the Rule of Law dominates. As long as you chose to live here you are consenting to this form of government. Here in Washington there are real and valid concerns to the legitimacy of the current occupant of the Governors office. This problem in no way affects the Washington residents' Consent to Washington's government, the issue is one of how elections are run, the legal system is functioning, and the application of law.

Consent to be Governed is granted by choosing to live here. Non-participation, i.e. not voting is de-facto consent, voting and participation in the process is positive consent. This consent is valid until such a time as the agreement is broken, this is normally seen in the usurpation of the peoples consent by the dismantling of the form and type of government and the laws of an existing government. Conversely the people can when they believe government is not longer operating with their consent legitimately, and rightly by any means replace the government with a government of consent.

Core Conservative Values:

Life, Liberty, Property and Consent of the Governed. While these values being eroded as the core of Western Civilization, this erosion is not going unnoticed or without opposition. Maintaining these values is the key political fight, and in the final analysis a winning strategy.

"We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Hillary Clinton, San Francisco, June 2004.

Following our political traditions that phrase should be;

"We are going to ask you to give up some things for the common good."

Therein lies the crucial difference between conservative and liberal values. Respect for Life, Liberty and Property, and Consent of the Governed vs. imposed government and the ruling class granting Life, Liberty, and Property when convenient to and approved by the rulers.

Building a solid intellectual foundation on these principals, understanding them and applying them is crucial to conservatism. Once these principals are internalized and applied consistently making decisions on individual issues is made much easier.

Life, Liberty, Property.

Hindsight

hind·sight P Pronunciation Key (hndst)
n.
Perception of the significance and nature of events after they have occurred.
The rear sight of a firearm.

Hindsight -- the factor in the democrats and Bush haters in attacking the President over Iraq.

Hindsight is a good thing, it keeps us from putting our hand on the hot burner a second time, the first time finding out it was not a good idea to begin with.

There are many times we think: woulda’, coulda’, shoulda’, if I’d only known…

We all make decisions based on erroneous input. Then when the outcome is less than optimal, we quote Homer “D’oh!” When everything works out, and we find out the information was flawed, wipe our brow and “Whew!” dodged that one. Or if we never know that the input was faulty, blithely go about our business none wiser.

Problem for the opponents of the President…

NONE OF THAT APPLIES

What? You say.

The President’s foes on Iraq, the War on Terror, US Security are floating a canard when they try to impugned the war and progress in Iraq based on the faulty intelligence made GWB lead US into a war on false pretenses. The have the area of criticism that no stockpiles of WMD were found, and attempt to extrapolate that into the whole Iraq war and by extension the War on Terror is in error.

It is obvious that the prewar intelligence was wrong on one main point, the existence of stockpiles of WMD . My question to the Bush Lied crowd is, what happened to the stockpiles of weapons that Saddam had and used? The frightening truth is no one knows for sure. But that discussion is for later.

First the War in Iraq was a correct decision. It was based on 21 points covered earlier , in those 21 points stockpiles of WMD are included in 2 points. Let’s see if it were a test in school that would rate a 90.48% score, low A high B depending on the instructor or school. If we were playing ball a hitter with 0.905 average would be a baseball god.

Bush Lied.

lie2 P Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

Let us say you read in the morning paper a story. On your morning coffee break you tell the story to your co-workers. Unbeknownst to you the paper retracted the story.

Did you lie?

You are expecting a very important order at work, the vendor has promised a ship date of the 1st, you figure shipment time and plan on arrival of the shipment on the 7th. The schedule calls for the shipment to be in house before the 15th. You have a meeting with the boss about the project. You call the vendor and confirm shipment on the 1st. In the meeting you tell the boss that the material will be in house on the 7th in plenty of time for the deadline. What you don’t know is that the vendor’s plant is burning as you speak. They will be lucky to ship to in 6 months.

Did you lie to your boss?

According to the logic of the President's opponents both times you lied.

Conveying information or making statements that at the time are thought to be accurate – IS NOT LYING!

In the lead up to the war the UN, democrat politicians, the intelligence service of most of the world all concluded that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD.

So when Kerry or Pelosi get up and say the President lied, they are accusing the UN, the collective intelligence opinion and themselves of lying.

So let’s get over that one.

The crux of the accusation is that Bush lied about WMD and lead us into a war. Okay let’s review.

Bush lied – not according to the definition of lying. Once that accusation breaks down, the rest of their complaint kinda’ goes poof. But just for the fun of lets continue the argument.

Their argument goes since Bush lied (we’ve shown he didn’t) the war in Iraq is illegitimate. However of the 21 casus belli points in the Resolution only 2 mention “stockpiles.” If we concede the entirety of those two points that means 19 of the 21 are still valid reasons for going to war.

The entirety of argument against President Bush and the decision to go into Iraq breaks down into at best flatulence.

Who voted for conflict in Iraq?

There are 3 key congressional votes leading up to the invasion of Iraq:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Senate Roll Call
House Roll Call
Signed by President Bush

IRAQI BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS (Public Law 105-235)

Passed by Unanimous consent in the Senate.
House roll call.
Signed by President Clinton.

IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (Public Law 105-338)

Passed by Unanimous consent in the Senate.
House Roll Call
Signed by President Clinton

Prominent legislators and their votes on the above bills:

Legislator	liberation Act	Breach	Use of Force
Sen. Kerry	Yea	Yea	Yea
Sen. Clinton	Not in Office	Not in Office	Yea
Sen. Biden	Yea	Yea	Yea
Sen. Daschle	Yea	Yea	Yea
Sen. Feinstein	Yea	Yea	Yea
Rep. Pelosi	Did not vote	Yea	Nay
Rep. Murtha	Did not vote	Yea	Yea
Rep. McDermott	Yea	Yea	Nay

These legislators who almost on a daily basis get up and proclaim "“Bush Lied, Bush made a mistake, wrong war." Are also on the record agreeing that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were a threat with WMD, ties and links to terrorists and should be removed from power, many voted to use force to remove Saddam.

A few voted no on the use of force, after they voted to make the Liberation of Iraq Public Policy and that Iraq was in breach of all the UN resolutions. Tough words and nothing to back it up, yeah Saddam should go, yeah he is giving the finger to the UN, but we'’re not gonna'’ do anything about it.

The response from them is "“Bush sent the military to war." That response is so ignorant of 5th grade civics as to be laughable. We have 3 branches of government, separate but equal. The president cannot use military force without the agreement and authorization of the Congress. They agreed and authorized.

Those who voted with the President on the use of force and the earlier bills are equally responsible for situation in Iraq. They agreed and vote that Saddam should be removed from power. They voted and agreed that Saddam had and was pursue WMD with links to terrorists. They voted and agreed that force should be used to accomplish those goals. The president could not have continued with the support of these yes votes in congress. They have no ground to stand up and say it was wrong, a mistake, that Bush got us into this mess. Wrong! They gave Bush the legislative support required by law to purse the goals of the legislation.

The naysayers supported and agreed on the record with President Bush and gave him the authorization of use force.

They now with the most cynical hypocrisy, holding a damp finger in the wind have determined that is more important for their own selfish and naked political ambition to turn back on their own votes and statements.

While there is room for criticism of the current state of the conflict in Iraq, acting as if they had no part is despicible political pandering. When a legislator voted for all the bills allowing the conflict to start they have no room to criticize the beginnings as if they were innocent bystanders duped by the dumbest man ever in the White House.