The Second Senate District of Georgia is a tough seat to for a Republican to win given the demographics of the area. This much is true, if you’re a typical “big government” Republican like Scott Brown. On both social issues and economic issues, Michael Gaster promotes free-market solutions to the problems that face our state and our nation. Gaster’s liberty centered approach to issues will ensure that the government keeps their hands off of the personal freedoms that we have grown to know and love. In a time where we see so many “Don’t Tread On Me” flags flying across this nation, I believe it important to know what that really means before stroking checks and casting our ballots in the upcoming July 20th Primary and November 2nd General Election. Some Republicans will tread on you just as much their Democrat counterparts; Gaster is not one of them.

Gaster has been named on of 2009′s People of Impact, with the title: Bureaucracy Buster in the Savannah Morning News, and was responsible for gettingGeorgia Highway signs to issue alerts regarding missing University Student Bryce Tarter. Gaster is already off to great start being an advocate for the people of Georgia without even being an elected official. In the past several years it seems that he has already accomplished more than his opponent, Lester Jackson and his lobbyist friend Dave Simons who worked and voted to keep people of the Southbridge community from voting on and determining for themselves, whether or not they would be annexed into the tax-free Garden City.

Jackson, and lobbyist Simons, hoped that Jackson and his friend, Mayor Otis Johnson, might be able to rake in some additional property tax from this community by having them annexed into the City of Savannah. In a district where smoke filled back room deals seem to be the norm, it’s time that we send a clear message of “Don’t Tread On Me” to the powers that be. Gaster told me in recent discussions that “Savannah is a part of the Second Senate District, but so are parts of Pooler, Garden City, and Port Wentworth, who all deserve an equal voice and a seat at the table.” It’s time to stop playing politics with people’s lives.  Consider contributing to Gaster’s campaign here: Friends of Gaster and voting for him in the upcoming July 20th Primary and November 2nd General Election.

History is littered with populist movements from both the left as well as the right, I will not delve into these as I do not have the time. I would venture to say however, that generally these movements start from the left. How then can we explain the events that transpired last night (01/19/2010) in Massachusetts? Those on the left want to say that this was all about state and local issues while those on the right want to say that this was a referendum on healthcare.

What the Political Left Says

Some on the left have stated that the people of Massachusetts opposed the current healthcare reform legislation because it would have amounted to a “double-tax” on their state. This would have been due to the fact that the people of Massachusetts are already being taxed for their state’s public healthcare system and would have had to pay double under a federally mandated system. This does not hold water due to the state exemption clause in the current Senate version of the bill.

What the Political Right Says

And while I do find it a bit ironic that the late Ted Kennedy was replaced by the people of his Commonwealth with someone who diametrically opposes the legislation which would have / could still be named after the late Senator, I do not believe that opposition to healthcare reform as “red state” people know and oppose it was necessarily the focus in Massachusetts.

The Truth Lies Somewhere In The Center

The people of the blue state of Massachusetts did not necessarily oppose this legislation, but rather opposed the way in which the latest healthcare reform bill was being drafted. That is to say that the people were disgusted with the process more than the legislation itself. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and the closed door UAW bribe, along with the locking out of C-Span from the congressional hearings just several weeks before this special election ALL contributed to the American (and Massachusetts) people’s disgust with how the Democrats are running Washington. I am not hear to argue whether or not these things amount to bribes, nor am I hear to argue that they were illegal / un-ethical. What I think these matters to be is irrelevant, the PEOPLE have spoken and it is what THEY believe these things to be that truly matter. And keep in mind that we’re not really talking about a bunch of “gun-totin”, “red-state-ers” up in Boston, MA; these folks are true-blue state-ers. Democrats outnumber Republicans in Massachusetts 3.5 to 1.

In Conclusion

There could not have been a more clear signal sent to Washington short of the coming results of the 2010 mid-term elections. The results of this election were not about any one specific issue, but were rather about the more general tendency that the American people have to refuse ANYTHING that the powers that be try to SHOVE down our throats. Those who SERVE US in Washington have forgotten who their boss is, Scott Brown just reminded them. It appears that Boston has had its second “Tea Party”.  A penny for your thoughts?

This concludes Anti-Federalist No. 4

I am going to dare to venture deep into a topic that few white males dare to dive into… race. I am sure that I will be blasted by many on the left for my remarks as this blog gets more exposure, however due to the recent news controversy regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I feel that I owe it to our readers to delve into this subject matter.

The History of Race and Federalists

On the issue of Federalism, there are two lines of thinking when it comes to racial equality and the role of the government. There are Federalist who believe that a strong Federal government is essential in protecting the rights of minorities. They evidence Supreme Court cases such as Brown vs. BOE and Roe v. Wade in their arguments. These Federalists bask in the light and the glory of the role Affirmative Action played in promoting the interests of minorities in the work place. Generally Anti-Federalists are painted as the sexist/racist villains because they question the wisdom of such a strong central government. The masses jump on this bandwagon, never stopping to questions things.

I believe there to be well intentioned Federalists and maniacal Federalists. I believe that most of the masses are well intentioned Federalists who believe that a strong Federal government will protect them and their rights. The maniacal Federalists on the other hand use the well intentioned masses to demonize Anti-Federalists and garner more power for themselves. I must state the obvious here, that but for cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Koremotsu v. United States where liberty and justice are NOT for all, there would have been no need for cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. BOE. Federalists marvel at the Federal government’s ability to “give” rights to the people; the problem is that these Federalists overlook the fact that it was the same strong central government which took those rights away in the first place. The flaw with Federalism is that the government givith, and the government taketh away. This runs contrary to the principals of inalienable rights which state that our rights are granted to us by GOD… NOT some temporary institution called government.

Federalists: The modern day racists?

You may be asking yourself: “How does this relate to race and Harry Reid?”. I must refer you to two quotes:

President Barack Obama: “Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right”.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “A right delayed is a right denied”

You see here that one man believes that rights are inalienable, the other man believes otherwise. The Supreme Court, as explained above, believes that IT has the final word on your rights, the same as the man on the left pictured above. I will not go so far as to say that Dr. King was a Conservative, a Republican, or an Anti-Federalist, but he certainly understood the incredible power that a strong Federal government could wield over an entire race of people. Dr. King certainly understood what inalienable rights were. Neither will I go so far as to say that President Obama is a racist, only that the policies he supports lend themselves to restricting liberty and fairness.

At the core of our inalienable rights is the principal of fairness. However, there is a double-standard in this nation. If a Republican or Conservative says something idiotic regarding race he is immediately labeled a racist in the court of public opinion. This man or woman is not judged by the content of his or her character as Dr. King would call for, but instead is run out of town on rails. If the same happens with a Democrat, all that is needed is an apology and things are made okay.

I submit to you that President Obama is weak. Here an incredibly accomplished, intelligent, revered leader was demeaned to what Senator Reid would call a “negro”, and instead of showing this nation his strength, and that that racism will not be tolerated, regardless of political party, he instead opted to cow tail for the sake of beltway party politics. This is the same kind of crap that Republican Federalists do.

Then there is the logic of President Obama, the same man who said that a Cambridge Police Officer “acted stupidly” without knowing the facts of the case, dismisses Senator Reid’s comments without equivocation. This isn’t “Change You Can Believe In”, this is more of the same insider party politics.  I believe that Trent Lott was RIGHTFULLY run out of D.C. for his remarks, and so too should Senator Reid. OUR public servants should be held to a higher standard. Yeah, and Kanye West is the “jackass”? Kanye’s got nothing on Reid. Please, share your thoughts.

This concludes Anti-Federalist No. 3

You may know it as the current Health Care Reform Bill that just passed in the Senate, but others know it by another name: The Nebraska Compromise. The reason it’s being called The Nebraska Compromise is because Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska , in an effort to bring home some bacon for his State, sold his vote on the Health Care Reform Bill in exchange for his State being exempt from paying the increased Medicaid Taxes that this bill would levy on each of the 50 States. It should also be noted that Nelson isn’t the only Senator who garnered favorable terms for his State in exchange for his vote. The States of Vermont Louisiana and Massachusetts were also successful in selling their votes on the floor of the Senate.

What has our nation turned into? The image that I see before me is not that of the United States of America, but it is that of a Divided States of America, where our elected officials resemble auctioneers selling their votes to the highest bidders more than they resemble legislators. They used to just sell us out to corporations, but now they sell us out to other States as well.

The question as to whether this is Constitutional or not is indeed an interesting one, but one that is easily answered nonetheless.

Article I Section 9

Limits on Congress

“No capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”.

This part of the Constitution was CLEARLY written to prevent uneven taxation by the federal government. The premise of “no taxation without representation” was what our nation was founded upon. Article I Section 9 takes things a step further and says that we have a right to “equal representation for equal taxation”. How is it that this right NOT being infringed upon by our Senators buying and selling their vote in exchange for unequal taxation. Does this not amount to taxation without representation? Are we not paying the tax burden for Nebraska, Vermont, Louisiana, and Massachusetts with regard to this bill? Because the other 46 States are not represented by the Senators from Nebraska, Vermont, Louisiana or Massachusetts, this DOES amount to taxation without representation.

The 16th Amendment

The Federalists Overturn Article I Section 9

Outraged yet? Well, get ready for more; I’m not finished. Legally, it does not matter if the federal government taxes one state more heavily than the other. Since FDR and the Congress passed the 16th Amendment, you no longer have a right to equal representation for equal taxation. The 16th Amendment, which was created to impose an income tax on the American people on April 8th, 1913 also stated that such income tax may be imposed “without regard to census or enumeration.”, which in laymen’s terms means that you can be taxed regardless of whether or not you are represented.

While this only pertains to income tax, we have seen in recent years where Federalists have “interpreted” the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean rather than to mean what it actually says. I would bet that the lawsuits coming from the State of South Carolina with regard to The Nebraska Compromise will fall on deaf Federalist Court ears because they will “interpret” the 16th Amendment to carry over onto other forms of taxation as well. In short, you and I are likely in for a wild ride unless the Congress repeals and rewrites the 16th Amendment.

The Federalists have turned the respective floors of the House and Senate into an auction block. Do I hear $5.00? I’ve got $5.00. Do I hear 10? I have 10. Do I hear $20.00? I hear FORTY FIVE MILLION dollars… going once, going twice, going three times… the Senate is SOLD for FORTY FIVE MILLION dollars!!!!

This concludes Anti-Federalist No. 2

The Divided States of America:

I will not start this blog off with a bunch of rhetoric about what this nation was founded upon. Instead I want to impress upon my readers what this nation does not stand for as of THIS date. Because we can go tit for tat about all of the bad things the U.S. government has done, and while it may be true that those things have shaped us as a people, but I argue that it has shaped us into a better people who do not wish to repeat the mistakes of the past. This is where we must go:

On Abortion:

I personally am the exact opposite of John Kerry on this issue. Religiously, I am pro-choice because I believe that every person on earth is endowed by their creator with free will. However, legally I believe that it is the responsibility of the government to protect those least capable of protecting themselves.

No serious thinker is PRO abortion or ANTI choice. We must stop demonizing those who do not agree with our ideology on this issue. Let it suffice to say that abortion will never be outlawed, but neither should it ever be allowed to be “abortion on demand”. There is no such thing as an absolute right to do anything. Even rights which are explicitly stated in our Constitution have been limited by the Federal Government (the right to bear arms for example). Why then would a right that is implied, and not explicitly stated in the Constitution not have limitations? The fact remains that no “right to privacy” is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, and even if it were explicitly stated, every right that is explicitly stated has been limited by our Federal Government; why would “privacy” be any different? Instead of running on a platform to outlaw abortion or to make it free and available “on demand”, we should strive to bring common sense limitations on the practice and end the divisive rhetoric on this topic once and for all. It’s time to stop the politicians from dividing us on this issue. If we discuss things long enough, I believe we will find that we agree on more than we disagree on. Keep in mind that with every right comes responsibility.

On Race and Poverty:

I’m not going to say that people should vote party line. I despise political parties, and if it were up to me I would do away with them completely and force people to be educated on the issues before they cast a vote. Ignorance causes poverty and it is this ignorance that war must be declared on. That being said, the American people MUST stop voting party lines based on race or financial disparity.

I find it ironic that all of the cities with the top 10 poverty rates in America have been run by Democrats 92% of the time since 1965. This isn’t saying that the new Republicans who act like little Democrats are any better, but we must see this for what it is. This is ironic because it is usually the poor who vote Democrat, and statistically, it is the Democrat that keeps the poor people poor.

I refuse to back one party over another, but I MUST point out that on this issue, history has been forgotten and misrepresented in order to foster political gains. Keep in mind that it was the Republican Party (GOP) that was founded on the premise of eliminating slavery. During the Civil Rights movement, it was the Democratic Party (DNC), and not the GOP which was responsible for racial oppression, especially in the south. I will not even go into how many Democrat leaders were members of the KKK. Yet somehow, we have allowed the DNC to paint the GOP as the party of racists because of a few people that have been allowed within the ranks of the GOP. Never mind that the DNC has statistically had more racists among their ranks than the GOP has had.  Again, I must stress that the house isn’t clean for Republicans either, but I believe it necessary to point out a lie when I see one.

On Homosexual Marriage

We must define this issue in legal terms rather than emotional terms. Those on the left have argued for years that there exists a “wall of separations between church and state”. Now, never mind that neither these words, nor this language exist anywhere in the Constitution; I recommend however that we allow those on the left to win this argument for the sake of discussion. If there exist a separation between church and state, why would the state recognize ANY marriage, straight or homosexual? If this separation exists, shouldn’t the state ONLY recognize civil unions and leave the business of “marriage” to the church?

The Constitution does give every one of us the right to contract, and civil unions are protected by that right to contract. This solution allows the government to step aside and let the church leaders fight this battle. This would allow us to get down to real issues rather than allowing career politicians to divide us and guarantee themselves life long careers in Congress.

On Economics:

While “trickle down” economics is a viable principal, there exists a certain way in which to maximize returns to the public with regard to the way that capital trickles down. With Barack Obama bailing out every corporation from GM to Bank of America, and now perhaps even the New York Times, we must be aware that it is now the Democrats who have turned over a “Pro-Big Business” leaf. Instead of being Pro-Big Business, should we not focus on being “Pro-Free Market”?

Americans believe in FAIR competition and STRONG economic growth. If liberal economic policies work so well, then why is California on the brink of bankruptcy while Texas has experienced below average unemployment and wasn’t hit as hard as the rest of the U.S. economy. The American people must ask themselves: “Economically, would I rather live in California or Texas?”.

Conclusion:

Our leaders have divided us on economic lines, religious lines, racial lines, and along the lines of sexual preference for one reason and one reason only, power. The party leaders divide up the states and draw lines in the sand to dictate political districts. How do you think they come up with those lines? You guessed it, the lines are based on economics, religion, race, and sexual preference, although the party leaders will never admit this. We MUST stop buying into their rhetoric. It is time for We the People to lead on these issues and let our Representatives know that we will no longer stand for these distractions.

This concludes Anti-Federalist No. 1