Judicial Selection Coalition

Mr. Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Mr. Steele, I am in receipt of your form letter and 2009 State of the Republican Party Survey and as has grow to be customary on my behalf I am going to use this opportunity to address the issues specifically asked within it in a far more in-depth manner than such a simple several selection survey permits.

For your convenience and mine I have reproduced the questions asked prior to supplying my answers.

Question:
“A recent national poll reported that nearly 25% of Americans want the government to pass more socialist legislation.  Do you agree or disagree?”

No true American would answer that they agree with this proposed course of action.  Likewise no student of history who can clearly see the past and present horrors that socialist government in any of its numerous forms has suffered upon the people would answer in the affirmative unless they are so blinded by a  lust for power for themselves and control over others.  This result merely confirms that which I have readily and repeatedly observed to be true; that there is about a quarter of the U.S. population that are difficult core leftists that desire a “utopia” they think can be developed by the hand of Government Almighty.

The problem however becomes that I ought to ask the question what has the Republican Party performed to stop the slowly creeping hand of unconstitutional state control over the years?  What has made them a better keeper of American liberty?  Is it merely the reality that they have not been party to as a lot bad socialist legislation as other political parties?  If such is the case, and it surely is, then it is not regardless of whether or not I agree but regardless of whether or not the Republican Party agrees and is willing to act against members who promote such folly.

Question:
“Which do you believe creates much more jobs for the American economy: Government Programs and Spending or the American Free of charge Enterprise System?”

The question should not be which creates far more jobs but which creates much more liberty and sustainable employment.  Both systems have proven capable of creating jobs.  But is it good policy to pay one man to dig a hole and then an additional to just fill it back up so that it may be dug once more as several government make work projects do?  Is it excellent policy to build buildings that will see little use and basically to invest money as government is want to do? Is it excellent policy to enact legislation that kills one job for an American worker but creates two bureaucratic posts to oversee the remaining ones as government policy frequently does?  Of course it is not.

The American Free of charge Enterprise System naturally creates jobs and does so by permitting individuals to freely enter into contracts with one another for goods and services.  It permits them to partake of their liberty and is obviously and by far a far better system despite at times that liberty leading to pain and suffering due to men and women making bad organization decisions.

Of course I prefer the latter to the inevitable pain doled out by government bureaucrats.

Question:
“The Obama Administration has proposed spending as a lot as .5 trillion to bail out the banking business.  Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?”

It is not just the Obama Administration that has proposed such.  It has also been the Republican Party’s representatives who have performed such and actually helped pass bailouts of lenders who made bad financial decisions with their assets and acted poorly in their fiduciary responsibility to their consumers who have invested with them.  TARP is the glaring example of this.

Of course such actions are additional-constitutional in scope and should not be undertaken.  The dilemma is that neither main party has shown the capacity to lead on such an issue.

Question:
“Do you oppose so-called “card-check” legislation, which eliminates secret ballot elections in the course of unionization drives and puts workers at risk of intimidation by labor bosses?”

The means of balloting is of secondary importance in this question.  Of primary significance is the intimidation practices of those that would seek to coerce other people into acting against their will.  Of course secret ballots are favorable and I believe that in the majority of times they are preferable.  But they are not constantly needed.  The Declaration of Independence was not a secret ballot for example and all those in favor proudly and openly displayed their votes by signing it.

The issue with unionization is deeper than the problem of “card-check” which I do firmly believe need to be opposed.  Numerous industries and companies have been forced to accept unions basically based on the desire for the employees to unionize.  This neglects the private property rights of the organization owner if he or she does not wish to accept such an act nor deal with such an entity.  The rights of organization owners should be as equally protected as those that wish to unionize and I fear that this is usually not the case based on the strength and bargaining power of several unions which have been shown to cripple enterprise when they grow to be too significant and powerful and are catered to at the expense of reasonable enterprise practices.

Question:
“Should the Republicans unite to block new federal government bureaucracy and red tape that will crush future economic growth?

The Republican Party must unite to block any new federal government bureaucracy that is unconstitutional in nature.  Adopting that general principle would be far much more admirable.  The question is will the GOP do this?

Question:
“Should Republicans in Congress oppose the new wasteful government spending programs passed in the recent “stimulus” bill by the Pelosi-Reid Democrats designs to “spread the wealth?”

See previous answer concerning unconstitutional government.  Adopting that overriding principle would serve the Republican Party well and answer several of the questions you ask of me.

Question:
“Do you agree that we ought to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration?”

Contemplating that control of immigration is a legitimate function of the federal government and clearly stated in the Constitution as such a role and contemplating that there are legitimate and non-discriminatory laws that make particular kinds of immigration illegal at present then the answer to such a question ought to be obvious.

The answer is yes.  Nonetheless the Republican Party has proven somewhat ineffective in this pursuit with high profile members of the party even pushing the concept of amnesty for current offenders over harsh enforcement and the legitimate rule of law.

Question:
“Should we do every thing we can to block Democrats who are attempting to shut down conservative talk radio with the so-known as “fairness doctrine?”

The problem of government control over the media and radio goes far beyond the attempts by some to mandate the practices and standards of private enterprise by means of the “fairness doctrine” or some other such hideous thing in an attempt to regulate the dispersion of ideas and opinions that the government and those in charge of it may not like.  Respected members of the federal government need to stand against such thuggish acts naturally.  However the issue is that the government is too far down a treacherous path by over regulating entities such as radio stations based on fallacious claims regarding their correct to regulate the “public” airwaves under the guise that they are “public” and only on that assumption.

However there is no distinction between the so-known as “public” airwaves being utilized by radio stations and a two citizens communicating on the street corner.  Both sets of words travel through the same air and if 1 can be regulated then so too may possibly the other.  Of course, neither ought to be under the precept of Freedom of Speech.  The regulation of the “public” airwaves is a slippery slope that can only lead to further infringements of the very first amendment by government officials unkind to liberty and their actions must be seriously looked at and paired back to only Constitutional roles clearly defined in the federal constitution.  Regrettably for the federal government this would mean for them the complete dismantling of the bureaucracy they have produced for such a purpose over the years as there is no constitutional authority for such.

Question:
“Should we resist Barak Obama’s proposal to spend billions of federal taxpayer dollars to pay “volunteers” who perform his chosen tasks?”

The federal government need to be outlaying not a single fraction of a penny of taxpayer dollars except to pay for powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution.

Question:
“Should Republicans unite in opposition to judicial nominees who bring a personal, left-wing agenda on social issues to their jobs as judges?”

The advise and consent role of the Senate in the nomination method has often been to stop the President from appointing wholly unqualified jurists to the bench regardless of whether they be personal relatives, political cronies or persons that would not uphold the fundamental principles of America and our Constitution.  The integrity of the Judiciary was of high importance in the past but has since been dimmed.

If a judge being nominated is not willing to prevent the taking of life with out due process of law (except in the instance of defense from harm) and uphold a conviction of such a individual discovered guilty for such an offense punishable by the constitutionally qualified fate of death then that judge need to be utterly disqualified and opposed.  If the judge being nominated is not able to clearly read and is unwilling to apply to Second Amendment’s unequivocal proper of the folks to keep and bear arms to all applicable cases prior to her then rightfully she need to be barred from ascending to any position on the federal bench.

Question:
“Do you want Republicans to vigorously defend the recently passed partial-birth abortion ban from attacks by the Democrat majority?”

I wholly anticipate the Republicans to vigorously defend the appropriate to life of all persons, such as the unborn who meet every biological and ethical standard of human life, as proclaimed that we are all entitled to by our own Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution.

Question:
“Should bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. be in charge of making your health care options instead of you and your doctor?”

Such a question must never even will need to be asked.  The Republican Party should of course be standing against unconstitutional power which any such control from Washington D.C. over health care would clearly be.

Question:
“If Barack Obama tries to gut the USA PATRIOT Act and other essential laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, need to Republicans in Congress fight back?”

President Obama is, of course, not capable of such acts because it is Congress that makes and, by correlation, repeals laws.  Nevertheless he may possibly attempt to lead members of his party in Congress to take such actions.  But much more to the point of this question is that the Republicans need to, I tension once more, stand against any unconstitutional power the government attempts to seize.  If there are unconstitutional provisions in any law, including the USA PATRIOT Act, they need to be fought against.

As such I will not give you carte blache authority to just keep some thing just because it exists and you proclaim it as good with out knowing much more detail precisely what specificities you desire to speak on.

Question:
“Should we stop Democrat leaders from cutting funding from our intelligence agencies or bringing back Clinton-era restrictions on inter-agency communications?”

I am certain that there are price savings to be had in all government programs including our intelligence agencies.  As a result speaking out against decreasing funding for them would not be prudent.  If you mean to ask me the question of whether or not or not the Republicans ought to stand against Democrats who may seek to castrate the intelligence community and make them ineffective by decreasing funding without rhyme or reason just to locate money to pay for other plans they may have then the answer is most assuredly yes.

Question:
“Do you support the use of air strikes against any country that offers safe harbor or aid to people or organizations committed to further attacks on America?”

I believe that the defense of America is a clearly defined role of the federal government thus the answer is absolutely.  Even so I would go further in saying that any country taking such action would be committing a de facto act of war against this country and must be dealt with by a lot more forceful means other than merely bombings from several tens of thousands of feet in the sky.

Question:
“Should Republicans unite in support of full funding for border and port security when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid try to make cuts in their areas?”

Are you honestly asking me if Republicans ought to take seriously their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution upon being elected to public office?  Of course they should.

Question:
“Do you think U.S. Troops should have to serve under United Nation’s commanders?”

I think this question begets one more.  Should the United States even be a member of the United Nations; an organization that allows tin horned dictators and grotesque thugs to enter our country and act as though they are legitimate statesmen?  The answer to that question is no and it also applies to the distinct question you asked as well.

Question:
“Do you agree that our top military priority ought to be fighting terrorists?”

Our top military priority should be the defense of America and our allies around the world.  If that includes at the moment in question the fighting of terrorists then yes.

Question:
“Should we fight military-cutting efforts in Congress such as the proposal from liberal Barney Frank to slash Pentagon spending by 25%?”

The military and defense of America are some of only a couple of functions that the federal government partakes in which are really constitutional.  This is not to say however, such as with intelligence programs which I previously addressed, that there is not waste and abuse that cannot be weeded out.  However to basically hack and slash in an effort to find money to fund other government programs, constitutional or not, ought to never be endorsed.

Question:
“Even though Barack Obama pledged to meet personally with the likes of Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, need to Republicans continue to focus on supporting democratic movements in oppressive states like Cuba, Venezuela and Iran?”

It is not that we should be supporting “democratic” movements so a lot as we should be supporting the actions of those either seeking or seeking to maintain liberty.  “Democratic” movements have often times lead to bad things such as in Germany prior to World War II, France, Venezuela, etc.  It is the objective of the movement, not the nature of the movement itself that should ultimately be considered.

As such the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with all freedom loving people and aid them as we can.  If we do not hold dear the liberty of the man in Africa because of his proximity then we, by our really inaction, do not abide by our own founding documents proclaiming that all men are created equal and possess the correct of liberty.

Question:
“Why did the Republicans lose the White Home and congressional seats in the 2008 elections?”

Simply because Republicans, as a entire, have not adhered closely to our founding principles and they have not defended our Constitution.  Instead they have allowed any and all to join their leadership ranks and run amok as candidates even when they are not of the top quality and caliber that ought to be rightfully sought.  When you look like those that you are running against, you give no reason for individuals to vote for you over those that you are running against.

Question:
“What are the key strengths and beliefs of the Republican Party that we can create on?”

The precepts of our founding documents and nothing a lot more.  But also nothing less.  However in recent memory I have come to question if these are truly things that the Republican Party believes in.

Question:
“What are the weaknesses of the Republican Party?”

Let me answer this question with questions of my own for you.  When was the last time the Republican Party forcibly stood up against the welfare culture of America where the productive are made slaves to the lazy and those that believe that they are entitled to something or other due to the fact of their age or situation in life?  When was the last time the Republican Party forcibly attacked the wrongness of the myriad of unconstitutional spending programs gushing forth from Washington and paid them any attention other than lip service?  I mean standing up and in fact calling them unconstitutional!  Not just skirting that essential topic and pointing out the symptoms of the programs which are high and unmanageable debt for our children, loss of jobs, the destruction of families and so on?  When was the last time the Republicans had the courage as a political party to firmly grab hold of the third rails of politics and take them with firm hands and stand on principle with out caring what those that benefit unconstitutionally from such programs may falsely say to try and keep their own hands in the cookie jar?

Answer those questions and you will have your answer to your own question.

Question:
“What is the very best way to encourage and register new voters in your community?”

I believe the alternative of personal appearances by Republican Leaders who can articulate the concepts and importance of personal liberty and the need to shed ourselves of the bloated government that presently is crushing our youngsters is best.  But again I turn to the thought of thinking that there are couple of, if any, Republican Leaders capable of such a task.

Question:
“What technological innovations ought to the RNC employ to grow our Party?”

It will not be technological innovations that grow the Republican Party.  Only a strong message of liberty and a repeated show that the Republican Party believes in that message will do this.  How the message is delivered is secondary and ought to not be the greatest concern of the Party.  To put the cart before the horse will only doom the GOP to failure after failure.  The GOP ought to correct its own house and get its message straight prior to it can grow the party.

Question:
“What can the Republican Party do to earn your trust?”

Sadly this is not a straightforward answer.  The Republican Party has so a lot to do that trust can not be given effortlessly.  The party has betrayed American and our first principles so quite a few times that it becomes a massive job in and of itself to just reach a point of modest trust significantly less competent action.  A recurring theme is that numerous members of the Party are far too liberal and do far too significantly harm to America with their actions upon being elected to office.  These folks need to not be members of the Party and while it may be untenable to sever ties with these individuals due to a fear of loss in power and numbers within the current Home and Senate we see that they can’t be trusted anyway.  Please reference the case of the dishonorable Arlen Specter from my own state of Pennsylvania who, upon realizing that his political career may possibly be over and that he would likely not win the Party’s primary, jumped ship to the party he was far more in line with from the start.

Specter need to never have been given the chance to run as a Republican by the Party, but in a lust for power he was readily retained in cycle after cycle since of his electability in a state that frequently cannot bring themselves to vote for anyone other than liberal Democrats.  Other members of the Party, Senator John McCain for example, have introduced blatant legislation within the chambers of Congress that directly opposes the Constitution and attempts to circumvent it.  I speak of course of McCain-Feingold.  There is absolutely no excuse for any man or woman representing the GOP to even think for a second that such was anything less than an unconstitutional infringement upon our God given liberties.

Yet he and numerous others are allowed to remain in the Party’s good graces.  And I do not believe that I will need to even point out the heinousness of TARP which was supported by several members of the Republican Party and yet another clearly unconstitutional overreach.

Far be it from me to imply that there need to not be disagreements between members of the Party over problems.  But when the issues in question are so clearly in violation of the federal Constitution yet still supported by Party members a serious look need to be taken to see if they are worthy of being referred to as Republicans.  If not they need to be thanked for their service and sent on their way to run either as Democrats, Independents or with some other third party that would accept their actions.

It has become clear that over the years the Republican Party is far to willing to remove principle from its process when selecting candidates in exchange for the candidates capacity to improve the Party’s numbers and power in not just Washington but also the State and local level as well.  The Republican Party should correct this to gain the trust of Americans who still believe in liberty and the Party must be willing to part firm with those that do not in fact hold our Constitution and the principles of limited government most dear. The example most clear to me is that of the 2004 Senatorial elections involving Mr. Arlen Specter.  The Republican Party disregarded a clearly superior candidate in terms of Republican ideals in Mr. Pat Toomey to openly support the incumbent.  And right now he has repaid that effort how?  I believe you see my obvious point.

To be frank Mr. Steele, I am not so particular that you are indeed the man who can support obtain the objective of regaining either my trust or the trust of many other Americans which the GOP so desperately needs.  You have not yet earned my trust and while I will gladly give you the chance to do so I remain skeptical. I am not intending to besmirch your character by saying this, only that I am pointing out that whilst I know some of you, I know not enough to trust you sufficient and that the actions of the Party and its members will dictate my future direction on this essential concern.  I believe that you can comprehend this skepticism based on the present state of the Party and the remarkably poor candidates that had been placed prior to us as witnessed by the choices in the 2008 Presidential election cycle alone.  It was for the most component an assortment of moderate to center left candidates whose histories of Constitutional infringements, big government excesses, general lunacy and promotion of failed socialist programs were well recognized but typically ignored.

The Party has a fantastic history.  But it has a dim future if such are the best leaders we are capable of finding and putting forth.  Earn my trust, and the trust of millions, by pulling the weeds from the lawn and cultivating the growth of a firm and dense grass upon which all can tread with out worry of thorns and other nuisances.  Take those weeds and cast them to compost and permit them to rot so that they may possibly fertilize the growing of the good.

Question:
“Will you aid the Republican National Committee implement your ideas and assist maintain our party-building programs for the 2009-2010 election moving forward by making a contribution right now?”

Whilst I have understood from the start that you are seeking monetary aid for your efforts please consider this letter to you as my contribution.  My time is valuable and I do command a decent hourly salary for my time and as this letter has taken the much better component of ten hours to fully compile to a state where I feel comfortable in submitting it to your attention I believe that you should accept this as my contribution and do with it as you see fit to assist your efforts.

Laus Deo,

Jeffrey J. (J.J.) Jackson, President
Land of the Totally free Studios, Inc.