The idea of State Rights has long been neglected by our representatives in Congress and this neglect has allowed the federal government to grow like a malignant tumor. In the anti-Federalist paper, Brutus XII, we read, "that this constitution,... will not be a compact entered into by states,... but an agreement of the people of the United States, as one great body politic,... The courts therefore will establish it as a rule in explaining... as will best tend to perfect the union or take from the state governments every power of either making or executing laws."
Brutus' pamphlet, published on February 07, 1788, was an accurate projection and his fears have become reality in our lifetimes.
Our republican government refers to two things:
We all know that one of the main functions of the Federal government is to insure our security and aid in the naturalization of new immigrants. Neither of these items are being upheld by our current government. The reforms passed by President Ronald Reagan back in 1986 are not being enforced. Why should we pass new laws when the old ones are not being upheld?
We must secure our borders. That must be the first order of business. Instead, Speaker John Boehner (a close political ally of my opponent) told supporters that he is "hell-bent" on getting comprehensive immigration reform (i.e. amnesty) passed this year. My opponent, Congressman Walden, told fellow Republicans that they should concentrate on immigration (amnesty) "after the primaries are over".
Rep. Walden has been endorsed by the Oregon Farm Bureau and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both of which are very vocally pro-amnesty. Republicans in the House have lost their way on this issue. Most Americans want steady jobs for Americans before worrying about illegal aliens. We understand the need for border security and enforced immigration laws.
My opponent recently released a letter to the FDA, declaring that their new rules on brewers and ranchers will hurt Oregonian businesses.
He's absolutely right - but my question is, why has he been funding the FDA with printed money from Washington, and then writing flimsy letters against it?
Wouldn't the logical solution be to cut off the funding for unConstitutional entities like the FDA and EPA? Why is our Congressman of 16 years so scared to take these Federal behemoths on?
“O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
God shed His grace on thee…”
We all know the words, and we all love the sentiment in this old folk song. Our kids and grandkids probably sing this song in school plays, much as we did at their age. But even as we sing these cherished words, the beauty they represent is slipping away.
Ludwig von Mises, in his preface to Bureaucracy, writes: ”The main issue in present-day social and political conflicts is whether or not man should give away freedom, private initiative, and individual responsibility and surrender to the guardianship of a gigantic apparatus of compulsion and coercion, the socialist state. Should authoritarian totalitarianism be substituted for individualism and democracy?”
When so-called public servants suggest the increase of Federal land management, it's usually sold to us as a great resource for our communities. We're told that we'll get wide open spaces to hunt, fish, hike, access with OHVs and use for countless other pursuits.
Unfortunately, all too often, once the government gets control of our land, it becomes closed to one or more of these activities. They close forest roads under the guise of "environmental protection", ignoring the fact that keeping these roads clear aids firefighters in the summer fire season. The bureaucrats insist that they know better than we do how to enjoy our wild places, and so they padlock the woods and force us out of land that should rightfully belong to the local community.
More and more forests in Oregon are being closed to OHV traffic, and our current Congressman seems content with making empty statements and meaningless votes. For those of us who love our open places, this is a serious issue, one that is worth fighting for. We will not be content with empty rhetoric - if we aren't willing to stand up, our kids will never know the freedom of Oregon's mountains and forests.
This is National School Choice Week, and I am thrilled to support the efforts of so many brave educators, teachers, lawmakers and parents who are standing up for kids, and the choices of parents and communities to pick what’s right for their families.
School choice is close to my heart, because Diane and I chose to home-school our two children, and were blessed to see our kids not only succeed in academics but excel out in the real world. Living on a ranch 36 miles from town would have meant multiple hours in a school bus every day for our kids, not to mention the countless wasted hours that a public school teacher must spend on discipline, and the lowest-common-denominator approach that so many schools are forced to take, even with well-adjusted, bright students.
So, we decided that our kids would be better served by more freedom, and the choice of home-schooling. By the time our children were in 8th grade, they tested out of High School on their SATs, and they reveled in the freedom to pursue their interests and take on entrepreneurial endeavors in junior high and high school. Children are gifts to us, their parents, and there is nothing that brings me more joy than watching my son build custom furniture using skills I passed on to him, or my daughter enjoying classic literature because my wife and I nurtured that love of English and let her experience the classics at a young age.
“From the moment of conception, the unborn has a human nature. That he cannot yet speak, reason, or perform personal acts means only that he cannot yet function to the degree we can, not that he lacks the essential nature that makes those functions possible in the first place.” — Scott Klusendorf, in The Case for Life
As you wonder about today's tragic anniversary of Roe v Wade, consider the implications of Klusendorf’s statement. I believe Scott nails it. He states an obvious, self-evident, common-sense truth that deflates the pro-choice moral position. Philosophically, there is no significant difference between the man I am today and the baby that I was in my mother’s arms 57 years ago. Clearly, this same logic also holds for me as an embryo only days or weeks earlier than that.
The logic of this pro-life position is stated clearly in what is known as the SLED Defense for Life. SLED represents four logical arguments based upon Size, Level of development, Environment and Degree of dependency.
Last week, your current US House member sent out a puff piece attempting to justify his recent votes. These kinds of word games are exactly what's wrong with Washington — in an age when more and more people are demanding honesty from their elected officials, why are we accepting these kinds of false claims? Rep. Walden asserts that this deal is a series of “common-sense cuts and reforms in the plan” that will “reduce wasteful government spending by $23 billion more and when passed will avert another government shutdown.”
An analysis by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) details where, the proposal identifies two specific years “(2022 and 2023) to reduce deficits by $28 billion.” Do you think that's going to happen? Do you believe that politicians will keep these promises, when right now they are misleading us about the nature of the bill itself?
Only in Washington can a legislator put the phrase "reduce wasteful government spending” and omit the gutting of the sequester law. Also, Rep. Walden purposefully hides the $63 billion in spending hikes over two years. Where did those "common-sense cuts" go again? This budget increases spending by $64B over 2 years and proposes to reduce spending $23B over 10 years. Only from an out-of-touch political class can this be labeled as a common-sense “step in the right direction.”
If you drive anywhere in Oregon, you’re likely to see massive billboards touting “Long Live Oregonians”, using cute cartoon scenes.
The trouble is that while the ads are attractive, all the clever marketing in the world can’t mask a bad product, which is what we’re seeing at the Federal level. Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster, one that even Democrats are running from, as more and more individuals lose their health insurance and rates continue to skyrocket. As liberals flounder, they see what they think is an escape and they grasp on to it - the accusatory question to conservatives: “what would you do to fix healthcare?”
In response, many establishment politicians are apologizing to America. Both Democrats and Republicans are expressing dismay at the dismal outcomes of a poorly-written policy and badly-executed technology. Still others are trying to convince us that they are truly outraged by the price increases, or that they “understand the pain” of Americans who are experiencing rising medical costs and lost coverage.
Professionals in our timber industries are the best-equipped stewards of our forests. However, in Oregon, more than 50% of the state is owned by the Federal government, so this means that private industry, state and local governments have ultimately no control over most of Oregon’s resource-rich landscapes. As a county commissioner I regularly see the tragic results from ill-conceived federal policies and the high costs of unintended consequences.
In Klamath County, and throughout the 2nd District, we find ourselves begging for favors from the Federal government instead of being allowed to create jobs, build communities and see prosperity flourish at the local level. The political establishment prefers rewarding national or regional special interest groups rather than local communities because that creates a culture of power, money and control for themselves. Federal control and regulation diminishes the effectiveness of those most likely to steward natural resources well (loggers, miners, ranchers, etc.).