Due to budgetary concerns, the light at the end of the tunnel...

Thank God for small miracles!

Earlier today, Congressional Republicans managed to finally attach an amendment to the latest Continuing Resolution spending bill that will operate (for the time being) as a sort-of de facto repeal of the 2007 incandescent light bulb ban.

While it's about damned time this happened (the legislation's components were set to take effect the first of the coming year) there is no shortage of comedic misdirection being perpetrated by the right-wing.

Here is a sample of such posturing from the article linked above:

"'When the American people gave Republicans control of the House in January, one of the major issues involved was the Democratic ban on the 100 watt bulb,' said Rep. Michael Burgess, who fought to preserve the incandescent bulb. 'Republicans have fulfilled our promise to the American people by allowing them to continue to be able to choose what type of bulb they use at home. Consumers should drive the marketplace, not the government.'"

Burgess will make such a comment with complete disregard for the fact Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) -- who presently chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- was one of the ban's legislative architects and the bill was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush.

But, we're all supposed to believe this was a "Democratic ban."

My next-favorite snippet appears two paragraphs before the one quoted above:

"Stopping the bulb ban was a chief GOP priority coming into this year, with all of the candidates seeking to become chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee saying they would push through a repeal."

Be aware that I refer to the GOP's "policy rider" as a "sort-of de facto repeal" due to the fact it doesn't actually overturn the original legislation it merely places prohibitions on expenditures related to its enforcement.

And some people still wonder why I'm a Libertarian.

Government’s role in social and family values

On more than one occasion – especially when addressing area Tea Party organizations – I have been asked to explain my position on several social issues, highlighted by where I stand on alternative lifestyles and legalization of marijuana. For the most part, these questions are intended to create doubt about me as a candidate among conservative voters. Since I already have written at length about my platform on legalization – I would encourage everyone to read my blog archive on the subject – the focus here shall be on government policy for alternative lifestyles.

To summarize up front, government – especially the federal government – should hold no role in determining what constitutes proper values in society. Values are a matter to be decided by the individual and the family.

My incumbent opponent in this congressional race, Jim Jordan, has commented on more than one occasion that his platform includes defending traditional marriage. The problem here is his unwillingness to explain how he proposes to do that. Jordan is falling back on platitudes and generic, broad-sweeping comments designed to make the average social conservative feel good about voting for him.

What I’m curious if he can do is actually spell-out a legislative plan of action to achieve the above stated goal.

What I can do, in the meantime, is spell-out a host of reasons why government – especially the federal government – keeping its nose out of private citizens’ business is the best option in preserving the liberty of all Americans.

Honestly, none of the three candidates for this seat (Jordan, Doug Litt, or me) oppose traditional marriage. I believe in traditional marriage as much as either gentleman.

However, my challenge on most topics relating to privacy and keeping at bay government intrusion upon and scrutiny of personal behavior typically centers on arguments of a hypothetical nature. I commonly ask people on both ends of the (obsolete) linear political scale – liberal and conservative – if they can give me a guarantee that after the bills they advocate have been passed into law America will not elect to the White House someone with whom they so vehemently disagree that they would not want that legislation in the hands of such an administration.

When having this discussion with conservatives, I don’t need a hypothetical in light of the current composition of Washington’s ruling class.

So, if legislation existed today that put in the hands of the federal government the ability to affect a set of social values policies, are you perfectly comfortable entrusting that authority to a president like we have today who has made comments such as, “I wouldn’t want my daughter to be punished with a baby.”

Is that someone you want setting social values policy?

And then there are cabinet members with whom he has surrounded himself and are now in a position to potentially influence such policy. The list begins with Hillary Clinton who has long advocated for so-called children’s rights: children’s rights being nothing more than a code phrase for “eroding parental rights.”

Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?

Next, we have Eric Holder who has established for himself a pattern of arbitrarily picking-and-choosing when and when not to prosecute federal cases for dubious reasons as well as filing suit against state governments in an effort to brush-aside the 10th Amendment.

Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?

And then there is Janet Napolitano who thinks so highly of our veterans that she attempted to sweep under the rug the infamous MIAC report that suggested (among other outlandish conclusions) war veterans returning home from the Middle East were increasingly vulnerable to extreme right wing propaganda.

Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?

The list doesn’t end with ranking Cabinet members. There is an assortment of midlevel White House staffers to examine, such as Kevin Jennings who has been recorded coaching 14-year-olds on deviant sexual activity.

Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?

Jordan’s assertion that he somehow can defend traditional marriage or any other component of Judeo-Christian values through an act of Congress is false on a purely Constitutional basis.

First and foremost, no where in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is Congress granted the enumerated power of regulating, sanctioning, or overseeing marriage.

Furthermore, as stipulated in the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In short, that means any law that may pertain to marriage strictly is the dominion of the states. Even then, I would reiterate my previous statement that marriage is a matter that rightfully falls under the essential American principle of individual and family sovereignty. In my opinion state governments have overreached with their respective authority by requiring all couples who wish to marry to procure state-issued marriage licenses.

The next point to be raised regarding Jordan’s rhetoric on marriage revolves around the potential for unintended consequences. My primary concern is the gradual relaxation of individual responsibility. We have seen this in all other aspects of “Nanny State” governance: the current welfare system has steadily drained millions of Americans of their drive and motivation to earn their income; modern public education has encouraged parents to lean on our schools for a source of absentee parenting; and, more and more industries in America have come to rely upon the myriad of federal subsidies in order to stay afloat as opposed to innovating new business models that actually work.

The same principle can easily overtake this aspect of parenting. If you believe in raising children to live their lives through traditional values, what will have a more lasting influence to those ends: once they’ve reached an appropriate age, talk to them and sustain an active dialogue with them about sex and sexuality as it relates to maintaining a healthy system of values; or simply fall back on the failsafe of decreeing, “You can’t marry someone of the same gender, the law won’t allow it.”

Such a change would not happen overnight. But, like the three examples listed above, the transformation of how people view this component of private, individual responsibility will come to pass before we’ve even realized it.

Last I knew, determining what is right and wrong for one’s children is not the place of any level of government. If God sees fit to bestow upon my wife, Marcy, and me the blessing of children it will be our responsibility as parents to raise them with traditional, Judeo-Christian values – not the government’s!

This is because we as a family, much like the individual, will be sovereign. As a result, the laws we pass must be written to respect the sovereignty of the individual and the family – not promote right wing big government.

Many of us today like to quote Thomas Jefferson’s piece of wisdom, “The government that can give you everything can take it all away.” The same logic applies to this discussion: the government that can mandate a particular set of values can turn around and deny you your right to live life and raise your family according to those values.

The simple truth is right wing big government is still just that: big government.

Crash and burn – live and learn

Well, after all the build up and all the mental energy and all the self-generated hype leading-up to last night’s inaugural public appearance, one thing is clear: there is a long row to hoe.

My appearance at the Morrow County Township Association can be summed-up in another simple cliché: baptism by fire.

Naturally, since the office I am seeking is one of vital importance to both the people who reside in the counties comprising Ohio’s 4th Congressional District as well as the nation as a whole (because the legislation on which members of the House of Representatives vote will affect all American citizens), I want any occasion where I will be speaking in front of a crowd to go well.

Since I have not had to engage in the art of public speaking in more than a decade, I knew in the days leading up the event that it truly was a matter of hoping for the best yet bracing the worst.

Despite my recount of how the speech went to my wife when I got home, she kept doing one of the things that makes me love her beyond what words can adequately convey: “Honey, you did great.”

If by doing great you mean crashing-and-burning, then it undeniably was the performance of a lifetime.

What I hadn’t properly considered in advance of appearing before last night’s session of the Morrow County Township Association is that essentially everyone in attendance was going to be a member of an opposition camp, not just Democratic Party candidate Doug Litt. The crowd consisted of township supervisors, township clerks, township treasurers, township trustees, a small handful of Morrow County commissioners and candidates for running for seats on it, and other local office holders. All those gathered were elected officials and special guest candidates.

These aren’t just people who typically vote Republican or Democrat. When their name appears in print anywhere it usually is followed by an “R” or a “D” – folks who have a stake in the game. The only non-partisan attendee there was a local judge seeking reelection to what he described as being his last term on the bench that he plans pursue.

And, here I was the lone soul in a room (by my personal estimate) of at least 80, people trying to promote the message, “Vote third party.”

If I was hoping my speech was going to go-over well, essentially I had about the same chances as a Somali pirate in the crosshairs of a Navy SEAL sniper.

Once I was handed the microphone and identified myself as a Libertarian, I looked up and saw a collection of facial expressions that people tend to get at a party right at that moment when that guest arrives – the one who was invited out of a sense of obligation since he is their friend but no one actually wants to show-up because they know at some point he’s going to get drunk and spit in the punch.

That’s when the nervousness really kicked-in.

I knew going in I was going to be nervous. I had hoped, however, that speakers were going to enjoy an opportunity to stand at either a podium or table-top lectern equipped with a microphone stand. When you’re nervous about having to speak before a crowd, having that surface onto which to lay your paper or notes and not needing to hold the microphone offers you a bit of an edge in terms of being able to hide it to some extent.

No such advantage was to be found. Addressing those gathered meant standing almost right on top of the people seated at the front, with the MCTA board to my back, having to juggle my speech on paper and the microphone.

I tried to break the ice by commenting, “I can’t guarantee how interesting this speech will be since I haven’t had to do anything like this in roughly 12 years – when I was in a public speaking course in college.”

Nothing.

Seeing as how Morrow County is in principally an agriculture-driven area – which here in Ohio tend to lean predominantly conservative – I then whipped out my teleprompter joke (“if someone’s willing to donate a teleprompter, that’s a corner this campaign ought to be able to turn”) as my next measure to win-over at least part of the crowd.

You could hear the crickets chirping in the background.

It was at that point – when that joke bombed – a voice in the back of my head (you know that one we all have which finally speaks up right at one of those seminal moments our lives) said to the rest of my brain, “Aw, crap.”

The further I went into my speech, the more my left hand – holding my printed speech papers – began to shake. And then my right hand – clasped onto the microphone – began shaking at the same pace. By the time I reached the three-minute mark (the speeches are timed quite aggressively but humorously at their quarterly meetings) I could feel my face flushing more and more.

To me, what also adds to the comedy of the situation is that I had so carefully crafted my comments and so diligently chosen what message I felt I needed to get across. Not having a college degree in a field such as economics or law, not boasting of a profession that carries with it a great deal of clout, and not having diddley-squat in the way of connections coming into this race, I knew as soon as I made this decision to run that my campaign efforts cannot be about me. My candidacy needs to be centered on how critically we need a third party such as the Libertarian Party in America’s political landscape, that my top priority if I’m elected to Congress will be to restore the Constitution as our government’s guiding hand, and that it is the principles and guiding values that are most important in a candidate at this point in our nation’s history.

Ultimately, in this informal, small-town setting, that’s not what anyone was interested in hearing. They just wanted to know about me – who I am, not get a dissertation on how the two-party system has gone awry in America. Oops.

However, there is one gleaming bright spot on which I can hang my hat regarding my Morrow County appearance. There was absolutely no media coverage of it. Not one camera was rolling to capture my ignominious glory.

The speech I had planned last night and the points contained within it will have their time and place along the campaign trail. And I still believe that, for the most part, the message they carry must serve as the focal point of my candidacy for all the reasons laid-out three paragraphs above.

I just have to let go of worrying about how intellectual I come across and simply be me. If I do possess a sufficient enough intellect to sway the masses, then I have to have faith it will show.

For now, it’s time to work on a better teleprompter joke.