Posted on 09/24/2004 12:33:11 PM PDT by NCSteve
My definition of a "true" conservative is pretty simple:
A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government. A political conservative believes the only valid function of the US Federal government is to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate trade. A political conservative believes that anything more than this leads to tyranny and must be resisted at all costs.
A political conservative also believes that the sovereignty of the US is sacrosanct because it was purchased with the blood of her children. A political conservative believes that treaties and trade agreements that violate that sovereignty are anathema and those who support them are treasonous.
A social conservative believes that the US was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian values. A social conservative believes that personal responsibility is second only to fealty to God in importance as a personality trait. A social conservative believes that the traditional family is the most important social construct and is fundamental to the survival of our society.
A fiscal conservative believes that you have first rights to the fruits of your own labor. A fiscal conservative believes that just as we all must live within our means, so must the government. A fiscal conservative believes that it is immoral for the government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens in order to redistribute it, no matter what the reason.
A "true" conservative is a political, a social, and a fiscal conservative. Simple as that.
He's got a pocketful of square pegs, and an inability to grasp the concept of a round hole.
check back later
Just realize that terms like "conservative" and "liberal" are politically relative, whereas terms like "libertarian" and "socialist" are absolute.
You offer a lot of theorectical thoughts. But the historic facts are as I posted earlier. The States exercised the Police Power in ways that set the moral rules, that have lately been upset, without question or serious dissent, both at the times of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, at the time the Constitution was proposed in 1787, at the time it went into effect in 1789, and for a long time thereafter. That is fully in accordance with the concept of a Republican form of Government. The suggestion that there are no moral rules in a Republic is absurd. You cannot name a Republic on earth, now or ever before, which did not have a Criminal Code that enforced its moral rules.
The alternative would be total anarchy, where no one would dare sleep at night without someone else standing armed guard to protect him.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Do you find the dichotomy between dependence upon Government vs. self-reliance, in dealing with one's own personal business, also ambivalent? When Conservatives talk about less Government, they of course also mean less people working for the Government; less money spent on Government; etc.. But American Conservatives, in particular, most emphatically, reject the idea of Government solving individual problems, which the individual has traditionally been expected to solve for himself.
Just what about the idea has you confused?
William Flax
For the information, including that contained on the minicd mentioned below, send me a snail mail (land mail) address and I will send you a CD that you can use for further distribution, contacting individuals, etc. If Felos is saying Oct. 3rd then we don't have much time.
FL AHCA Coverup Forces Schoch To Issue Public Writ Of Mandamus
Tallahassee, FL (PRWEB) September 2, 2004 -- The following public writ of mandamus was sent via Express Mail and certified letters to all parties in the letter on 8-28-04. It was also passed out to the media in Tallahassee the day before and on the day of the oral arguments before the Florida Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of HB 35-E/S 12-E (Public Law 03-418). This is my Public Writ of Mandamus. Each letter came with a mini cd of the AHCA documentation and other information which proves there is a cover-up. (Note: If you would like to represent or know someone who would like to represent this case please call Juan Schoch at 407-925-4141):
August 28, 2004
James D. Boyd
Inspector General of AHCA
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403
Re: All information, CCR#s, and yet to be assigned CCR#s contained
and referred to in CIG#200406030002 and AHCA Tracking #05-003, etc.,
other cases yet to be generated and your duties to set Theresa
Schindler Schiavo on the road to her recovery (much can be found in
the enclosed mini compact disc)
Dear Mr. Boyd:
Thank you for your letter of August 13, 2004 regarding my August 9,
2004 e-mail requesting public records and copies of various agency
documents. In your response you write "…the issues raised in your
June 3 letter and July 20 e-mail did not show evidence of possible
violations of statutes, policy or procedure that could constitute
misconduct or wrongdoing on the part of agency staff…" to which I
make the following statement and request:
I demand as a United States citizen and a Florida resident
sufficient corrective actions, remedies, redress, relief, etc. to
what I perceive and know to be illegal actions of AHCA, facilities,
etc. I hereby request AHCA and any other government agency or
entity, local, county, state or federal invested with investigative,
enforcement and prosecutorial powers who may be reading this, or
others of whom it is within their purview of being able to contact
said powers, etc. to do their jobs of investigating, enforcing or
assisting in getting the laws enforced in regards to valid
allegations of acts of felony neglect and attempted murder, etc.
perpetrated against the person of Theresa Schindler Schiavo.
While it is my duty (when it has come to my knowledge) as a resident
of the State of Florida and a United States Citizen to report
abuses, neglect or exploitations against vulnerable people who can't
speak for themselves it is NOT my job to site book and page. One
would think that the competency level of all persons in agencies
serving the public who by statute are to receive, properly review
and survey complaints for violations of statutes, criminal
violations, disregard for policies and procedures that are in fact
evidence of misconduct or wrongdoing on the part of agency staff and
facilities, persons, etc. would be much higher then heretofore
displayed.
I have provided, while perhaps to some seemingly disconnected or
incongruent, sufficient, overall and comprehensive evidence to
illuminate within the average persons mind and their reasonable
ability to piece together and comprehend pertinent data, more than
enough evidences of illegal conduct, which point to statute
violations on the part of agency staff and facilities, etc. and it
has become painfully clear that people in your and other agencies
are spending more time sending not just me, but most complainants,
relating to the matters presented, far afield from the matter at
hand, of which there is or are:
* Non-delivery of all 15 retained rights of this incapacitated
person pursuant to Florida Statute 744.3215(1)(a-o) both
individually and collectively as a whole
* State licensed facilities bowing to the abuse of power by the
guardian, his attorneys, local law enforcement, the state attorneys
office, and other public officials to facilitate and further the
denial and withholding of this citizens statutory and constitutional
retained rights
* Illegal acts and or omissions by many supervisory level personnel
in many agencies and facilities, in non-fulfillment of their duty by
those personnel pursuant to Florida Statute 415.1034 mandatory
reporting to invoke and call upon protections under the
whistleblowers act when their employment is threatened. Such and
other failures are enabling, promoting and facilitating what appears
to be an overall agenda of their various supervisors (and others)
who indirectly and/or directly are working collectively (knowingly
or unknowingly) pursuant to a directed agenda by the recently
exposed many in positions of public trust
In light of the fact that AHCA Complaint Administration Unit intake
operator Justina told me that they "didn't want to hear about what
particular statute violations were occurring as it is the AHCA's job
to know these things," and as I have stated above it is not my job
to point out the specific violations of statutes, policy, or
procedure that could constitute misconduct or wrongdoing on the part
of agency staff, facilities, etc. (your words in bold), it should be
obvious to you that while I am perfectly capable of seeing and
reporting specific violations I was being told not to do this by the
Complaint Administration Unit intake personnel. Now I am being told
by you to the contrary that I must do your jobs. This in and of
itself is evidence of an agency and a system that continues to
notoriously exhibit incompetence in this matter, and only proves a
limited ability to send the very people who you serve, on endless
tail-chases and endless non-productive rabbit trails.
While all of this energy is expended, the primary matter at hand,
the FS825.102 and FS825.103 abuse, neglect and exploitation of
Theresa Marie Schiavo continues at the liable hands of all agencies,
various personnel and public officials, etc. to the detriment of not
only her but all vulnerable adults, elderly and disabled persons
throughout the State of Florida by the acts and omissions of every
one of these negligent persons who are entrusted with the Public's
Trust.
BE IT KNOWN, that everyone is officially on notice, that to continue
to obey these illegal and subversive directives, of persons who wish
to continue to further the obvious and blatant efforts to
intentionally cause the death of this very conscious, self-aware,
cognitive, disabled and vulnerable adult (who has been actively
prevented from getting better) as defined by Florida Statute 415,
744, 825, 400, 782, the ADA Act, and CFR42 rises to the level of
felony crimes and is unlawful, collectively, pursuant to Florida
Statute 876.22 through FS876.31 known as the Subversive Activities
Act, in that the collective efforts, whether knowingly or
unknowingly, of all the involved including medical professionals,
public servants, facilities, guardians, caregivers, and others, is
ultimately resulting in the destruction of all that we as free
citizens enjoy as our constitutional protections, which are there to
guarantee our inalienable right to life, liberty to that life, and
the pursuit of happiness through our FS744.3215 retained right to be
restored to capacity at the earliest possible time, which has no
time limit.
An Inalienable Right is particularly defined as: That which cannot
be given or taken away. Thusly, a person cannot Give their Life away
nor can it be Taken away. Both are crimes, and protections of life
are networked rather thoroughly throughout our Laws and our
Constitution.
Consider this my public Writ of Mandamus to all (with various media
as my witness) who will be receiving this letter, to cease and
desist your acts or omissions which are felony crime statute
violations, which may lead ultimately to this woman's death by your
incompetency, complacency, malfeasance, misfeasance, obedience to
personal or collective agendas, disobedience of mandatory reporting
of abuse, neglect and exploitations. This will require your
proactive efforts in conjunction with other agencies and persons, to
go against those who draw you in and only use you as pawns in a
bigger agenda, by this case, to create a constitutional Right To
Make You Dead. Investigate and prosecute the guilty parties. It is
your obligation to set Theresa on the road to her recovery.
Do your jobs or suffer the consequences in the long run for your
participation in blatant, in your face, felony crimes.
Sincerely,
Juan Schoch / Lake Mary, FL
P.S. I was never issued new CCR#'s per my written complaints (June
3, 2004) and yet you have done nothing but obfuscate that fact. I
find this more than just a little reprehensible and believe it shows
the complete and total incompetence, if not outright obstruction of
justice, by you, your staff, the AHCA Complaint Administration Unit
and others in your agency. It would be smart to stop digging
yourself a hole and get back on the right track.
cc: Jeb Bush, Governor
c/o Christa Calamas, Governor's General Counsel,
Charlie Crist, Attorney General,
Lee Constantine, Senator, District 22,
Derry Harper, Chief Inspector General, Executive Office of Governor,
Dawn Case, Director of Investigations, Executive Office of Governor,
Guy M. Tunnell, Commissioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
Lance Newman, Director, Tampa District Office, Florida Department of
Law Enforcement,
Cynthia Schuler, District Administrator of District 14, Department
of Children and Families,
Bernie McCabe, Pinellas Pasco State Attorney,
Dorene Thomas, Chief of Police, Pinellas Park Police Department,
Sid Klein, Chief of Police, Clearwater Police Department,
Everett Rice, Pinellas County Sheriff,
Carl Whitehead, Special Agent in Charge, FBI Tampa Division,
John L. Wodatch, Chief, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights
Section, U.S. Department of Justice,
Representatives of House Committees Elder Affairs and Long Term
Care, Family Health, Health Care and Health Services: Rep. Hugh
Gibson / Rep. Dorothy Mindingall / Rep. Tom Anderson / Rep. Joyce
Cusack / Rep. Carole Green / Rep. Richard Machek / Rep. Sheri
McInvale / Rep. John Quinones / Rep. Dave Russell / Rep. Heather
Florentino / Rep. Sandy Adams / Rep. Aaron Bean / Rep. Faye Culp /
Rep. Nancy Detert / Rep. Matt Meadows / Rep. Sandra Murman / Rep.
Nan Rich / Rep. Frank Farkas / Rep. Ed Homan / Rep. Holly Benson /
Rep. Gus Bilirakis / Rep. Marty Bowen / Rep. Susan Bucher / Rep.
Larry Cretul / Rep. Rene Garcia / Rep. Gayle Harrell / Rep. Arthenia
Joyner / Rep. Stan Mayfield / Rep. Dave Murzin / Rep. Joe Negron /
Rep. Ralph Poppell / Rep. Manuel Prieguez / Rep. Julio Robaina /
Rep. Yolly Roberson / Rep. Ray Sansom / Rep. Eleanor Sobel / Rep.
Shelley Vana / Rep. Roger Wishner / Rep. Juan Zapata
Kate O'Beirne, Washington Editor, National Review / David Sommer,
Reporter, Tampa Tribune / Brendan Farrington, Correspondent,
Associated Press / Jim Witters, City Editor, Bradenton Herald / Mike
Vasilinda, Bureau Chief, Capitol News Service / John Lucas, Bureau
Chief, Florida News Network / Marshall Griffin, News Director,
Florida Public Radio / John Baker, Bureau Chief, Florida's Radio
Networks / Rick Flagg, Bureau Chief, Florida Radio News / Jim
Saunders, Bureau Chief, The Florida Times-Union / Paige St. John,
Bureau Chief, Gannett News Service / Marc Caputo, Reporter, The
Miami Herald / Lloyd Dunkelberger, Bureau Chief, New York Times
Florida Newspapers / John Kennedy, Bureau Chief, Orlando Sentinel /
Shirish Date, Bureau Chief, The Palm Beach Post / Lucy Morgan,
Bureau Chief, St. Petersburg Times / Linda Kleindienst, Bureau
Chief, Sun-Sentinel, South Florida / Nancy Cook Lauer, Bureau Chief,
Tallahassee Democrat / David Wasson, Bureau Chief, Tampa Tribune /
Georgia Davis, News Director, WFSU-TV/The Florida Channel / Jim
Lehrer, NewsHour w/, PBS / Diane Sawyer, ABC News / Dan Rather, CBS
News / Larry King, CNN/Atlanta / David Shaw, Media Critic, Los
Angeles Times / Richard S. Newcombe, Creators Syndicate / Reed
Irvine, Chairman, Emeritus, Accuracy in Media
# # #
exodus # 157 - Any one who believes that the government should act "despite ... limitations on their power" is not a conservative.I did not change the meaning of what you said in post # 57. One of those "other" limitations would be the fact that government does not have permission to grant powers to itself.
NutCrackerBoy # 169 - The grand total of two words ("the other") you replaced with an ellipsis were key - you distorted my words. Of course government should act to support institutions. That is the position of the original conservative, Edmund Burke.
tacticalogic # 172 - "Supporting institutions" is like (or within) "promoting the general welfare". It is an objective, not a power. They may exercise their powers to that end, within the limitations inherent in the power.
**********************************
You said, fully quoting you, and highlighting what I edited,
"There are conflicts but also resonance between the social and political conservative. Ever read de Tocqueville? It has long been held that what makes limited government feasible is a strong morality among the people. Social conservatives believe that the federal or state government can and should act, despite the other limitations on their power, to support institutions that tend to engender a strong moral character, such as church and marriage."The purpose behind our Constitution is that no power will be taken by the Federal government without permission. The same limitation holds for both State and Local level; they are not to usurp power.
Creating, or even supporting an organization using the justification "nobody told us we couldn't" is a usurpation of power not granted by the People.
The Constitution importantly limits government from willy nilly creating X Y and Z programs, and therefore, obviously, taxing the people to finance those programs. But my point was, within the appropriate actions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, wise leaders should act in a way that protects the existence of, and furthers the goals of, institutions such as religion and marriage. If you do not like those examples, how about supporting the goals of an impartial judiciary by encouraging legal education? There are a number of valuable extra-governmental institutions. Officials of our government are not expected to act 100% neutral with respect to them.
Finally, I often witness so-called libertarians wax apopleptic over something like, oh I don't know, Roy Moore's harmless rock, but who essentially roll over for meddling judges using the awesome power of the state to redefine, at the point of a gun, civilization's most basic institution (marriage).
Actually, I believe you made the statement clearer, the two words you left out being rather non-sequitur in the context of the remainder of the statement.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. What do you think the federal government should be doing that it isn't, and under what authority, or what is it doing that it shouldn't, with regards to marriage and religion?
The Federal Government was set up with very important functional roles, relating to Commerce, avoidance of problems between the States, and protecting all of them from foreign dangers, etc.. The day to day interaction of Government with respect to questions of health, safety and morals--the Police Power--was left to the States; or better put, not delegated to the Federal Government.
In short, moral rule setting was never intended to be a Federal function.
"Moral rule setting" was never intended to be a primary function of State or local government either. We were to have a republican form of government in the States, where our individual rights to life, liberty, & property were not to be infringed. Moral rule setting by majority will is against all of our basic Constitutional principles.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been the avenue by which the Federal Courts have interfered with the exercise of State Police powers, where someone claimed, on one of various rationales, that they were unfair.
After the civil war, some States were violating the individual rights of former slaves, using the 1833 Marbury opinion as their rationale. The 14th attempted to stop those violations.
The problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment has been the vehicle to apply restrictions originally put on the Federal Government, which was not supposed to act in certain fields, to the States, which from time immemorial have had the role to act in those very fields.
State & local governments can reasonably regulate public behaviors, using Constitutional methods.
-- See Art. VI, as to how all Officials are bound to support our Constitution as the Law of the Land.
You are very confused. At the time the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, the States had legislation on the books that accomplished all of the things which the ACLU has lately interfered with.
You seem obsessed with the ACLU, Flax.. Why? -- I am not their defender.
I am not obsessed with the ACLU. I used the reference to the cases they have brought as a form of short-hand--an umbrella reference--since they have been involved in virtually all of the major set backs for States' rights in the exercise of their Police Power, over the past two generations.
States have no 'right' to infringe upon our individual liberties. They must use their police powers in a Constitutional manner.
The framers of the Constitution were not idiots. If they intended anything remotely like what you suggest--and suggest over and over again in various threads--they would have addressed it. If you read the Constitution as an entity, you will note that they did address those things which they wanted the States to cease doing--both in Article I, Section 10, and by implication in Article IV.
You ignore Article VI, with its clear demand that States honor the "Law of the Land"; -- "anything in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
You can cite provisions out of context--and clearly without understanding--until you are blue in the face. That will not change the intended nature of our systems.
You can say I lack 'understanding' till you're blue, but that doesn't change the clear words of our Constitution, as I cite them.
And the absurdity of your claiming to be a Libertarian, but denying the rights of local governments to set moral standards for themselves, should be equally evident.
I've never denied that local governments have the power to set reasonable standards for public behavior, as you well know.
Obviously, it is more in accordance with the concept of free individuals for the Police power to be invested in the Governments near to them--the Governments that they can influence directly--and not in far off Washington.
You preach to the choir, Flax.
Incidentally, I am not sure just what you are intending to say on the subject of whether Conservatism is correctly addressed in the lead essay? That is the subject, you know. William Flax
I addressed what you had to say about "Moral rule setting".
-- Setting 'moral rules' is not a primary function of a republican form of government.
You offer a lot of theorectical thoughts. But the historic facts are as I posted earlier.
Not true, I've refuted your 'facts'.
The States exercised the Police Power in ways that set the moral rules, that have lately been upset, without question or serious dissent, both at the times of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, at the time the Constitution was proposed in 1787, at the time it went into effect in 1789, and for a long time thereafter. That is fully in accordance with the concept of a Republican form of Government. The suggestion that there are no moral rules in a Republic is absurd. You cannot name a Republic on earth, now or ever before, which did not have a Criminal Code that enforced its moral rules.
I've never suggested that our criminal laws aren't based on 'moral rules'. The primary such rule is the Golden Rule, -- 'do onto others'.. common to all societies & religions.
The alternative would be total anarchy, where no one would dare sleep at night without someone else standing armed guard to protect him. William Flax
I repeat, why are you preaching to the choir? -- I accept that fact that our State & local governments have a police power, -- but they cannot violate our BOR's in using that power.
Can you agree?
Actually, I believe you made the statement clearer, the two words you left out being rather non-sequitur in the context of the remainder of the statement.Thanks.
**********************************
I thought so too. :)
To: exodus; tacticalogicIt sounds like we agree on that basic fact.
"... The Constitution importantly limits government from willy nilly creating X Y and Z programs, and ... taxing the people to finance those programs.
# 229 by NutCrackerBoy
**********************************
I go further, and say that the government also doesn't have the legal power to finance programs that already exist, or that were created through the private sector; programs that it did not create.
To: exodus; tacticalogicNo government has any business encroaching on either religion or marriage. Both religion and marriage belong to the People.
"... within the appropriate actions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, wise leaders should act in a way that protects the existence of, and furthers the goals of, institutions such as religion and marriage ..."
# 229 by NutCrackerBoy
**********************************
Even State and Local governments should not interfere with religion or marriage.
To: exodus; tacticalogicAs far as legal "education," I believe legal schools destroy their graduate's understanding of Law.
If you do not like those examples (religion and marriage), how about supporting the goals of an impartial judiciary by encouraging legal education? There are a number of valuable extra-governmental institutions ..."
# 229 by NutCrackerBoy
**********************************
They and their graduates also foster the belief among our citizenry that Law can only be understood by lawyers.
That is a false belief.
Lawyers don't protect law, they corrupt law.
I choose to assume your question is not about exodus' narrow, blindside attack which I believe I have put to rest. In the original context, my point had been to illustrate synergy between social conservatives and (what the vanity called) "political conservatives" (libertarians).
The social conservative believes in vouchsafing church, family, marriage. To the extent these are successful, civilization hums along. The people are pretty good about not treading on each other. I think libertarians should like that state of affairs. Because when these institutions are unsuccessful, there is likely to be chaos and you are going to need more laws, and more police, blah blah blah, which would be bad. With me so far? Liberty has a better chance to prosper when church, religion, family and marriage are influential in the social realm.
I called Edmund Burke the original conservative. In his political philosophy, government does not leave the well-being of those beneficial social institutions simply to chance. Admittedly, it would be infeasible and tyrannical for government to force those things down everyone's throat, and moreoever government may well be powerless to stop them from deteriorating in some circumstances. But in Burke's opinion, and mine, the actions of the state (most often at the local level) should help those institutions along.
Now, back to your question: What do you think the federal government should be doing that it isn't, ... or what is it doing that it shouldn't, with regards to marriage and religion?.
Example 1: Purist civil libertarians advocate the strictest of church-state separation. This position has for decades had undue influence among America's leaders. These meddlers are busily suppressing that "help-along" I was talking about. They even hijacked the Supreme Court (in the Everson case) to hamper the community from propagating shared religious values in the schools.
Example 2: State and local governments have enjoyed an appropriate role regulating the institution of marriage. This is another of those "help-alongs" I keep talking about. But this is suffering an attack. Radical egalitarians, again with undue influence in government particularly the judiciary, are taking an evil advantage of that role. They are tyrannically forcing social changes down everyone's throat.
To: exodus; tacticalogic"Officials" as individuals can support anything they want, but they cannot legally use their position as public "servants" to support institutions they favor.
Officials of our government are not expected to act 100% neutral with respect to them (religion, marriage, and schools).
# 229 by NutCrackerBoy
**********************************
They certainly can't legally use public moneys to finance those things they support as individuals.
To: exodus; tacticalogicNether our government nor our Court have any business interfering with marriage. "Defining" marriage is interference.
Finally, I often witness so-called libertarians wax apopleptic over something like, oh I don't know, Roy Moore's harmless rock, but who essentially roll over for meddling judges using the awesome power of the state to redefine, at the point of a gun, civilization's most basic institution (marriage).
# 229 by NutCrackerBoy
**********************************
Marriage belongs to the People, and people, as individuals, define what marriage means to themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.