by Walter Scott Hudson, contributing to the New Patriot Journal

WAYZATA, MN – A resolution distinguishing rights from entitlements, and compelling clarification of the GOP message, passed a precinct caucus vote Tuesday. Discussion of the resolution centered on the inalienable nature of rights, their divine source, and the need for conservatives to plainly articulate how proposed entitlements, like universal health care, cannot be accurately characterized as rights.

Throughout the national debate on health care reform, advocates of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda have consistently asserted health care is a right which government is morally obligated to provide. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democrat – Vermont, in a June 2009 op-ed for the Huffington Post, compared the pursuit of universal health care to “the civil rights movement [or] the struggle for women’s rights.” At the funeral service for Senator Edward Kennedy, surviving grandson Max Allen prayed, “…that every American will have decent quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”

The author of the entitlement resolution (this writer), prefaced his proposal by disputing these sentiments. Rights are like fences, it was argued, defining boundaries which others may not justly cross. Entitlements are like keys to the gate. Since an entitlement is functionally opposite a right, it was said, representation of entitlements as rights must be challenged. The text of the resolution was presented.

Whereas, rights are intrinsic to the individual, defining inviolable and inseparable boundaries upon which no party, be they individual or corporate, may tread, and

Whereas, entitlements are opposite of rights, necessitating violation and encroachment upon sovereignty,

Be it Resolved we will discern and distinguish rights from entitlements in the public discourse, advocate for the jealous protection of the former, and combat with all due vigilance efforts to misrepresent a proposed entitlement as a right.

Though the underlying sentiment of the resolution was well received, concern was expressed by the caucus regarding its failure to address divine origins. Deliberation led the caucus to conclude, since the Minnesota GOP platform already acknowledges God in its preamble, there was no need to reiterate the point in the proposed resolution. The resolution’s purpose, it was agreed, is to discern rights from entitlements by virtue of their relationship to the individual and the state.

Despite concern the precise wording might benefit from greater deliberation, the resolution passed a vote without dissent. As a result, it will next be considered at the Minnesota Senate District 43 BPOU convention on February 27th.

by Walter Scott Hudson, New Patriot Journal

PRINCETON, MN – Freezing rain coated already slick roads on the 21st of January, making travel inconvenient, even by Minnesota standards. Despite the weather, as proceedings commenced in the Princeton library, late-comers to a Milaca Tea Party event continued to trickle in. Additional folding chairs were placed along the edge of the room to accommodate. The folk were plain, mostly older, orderly and attentive. The meeting opened with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Sue Bican took the floor and emceed a series of announcements and appeals for involvement. On February 4^th, the start of the legislative session in Minnesota, there will be a rally south of the State Office Building in St. Paul. The Minnesota Sovereignty Project needs advocates to contact state legislators. Though the Tea Party organization is non-partisan, Minnesota caucuses happen February 2^nd, and participation is strongly encouraged. Action was the theme common to each topic, and the struggle was local.

Elaine Philippe, described by her cohort as one who “works harder than anyone else”, delivered a report of the seven-member school board for District 477. Only two members had voted against a recently passed teacher pay increase which will cost the district $400,000. Philippe wanted those gathered to know their names. The measure passed during a period when financial reserves are all but depleted and money will have to be borrowed to keep schools running. Board members Kathy Kraft and Susan Spain may be thanked for their effort in spite of the outcome, Philippe said.

Mike Byrd, a local Tea Party coordinator, appealed for greater involvement from the attendees. Though the recent victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts senate race was heartening, “We can’t put our faith in someone out there in Massachusetts,” he stated. “We’ve got to do the same thing here, from a local level, school board, city council, county commissioners. Those are the people that graduate up, become senators, congressmen, and go on to the state house.” He encouraged people to be respectful of those who disagree and be wary of provocateurs who wish to cast the group in a bad light.

The keynote event was the hour long documentary film Fiat Empire, which details the creation and operation of the Federal Reserve System. The film laid out in concise detail how the privately controlled monetization of federal debt enables Congress to continue spending money without having to raise taxes. Inflation acts as a hidden tax, the film states. This arrangement enables politicians to have the best of both worlds, able to continually appease voters with largess from the public treasury while avoiding the political suicide of increased taxes.

When the meeting adjourned, many attendees remained to converse. On a cold wet school night, these citizen activists were gathered toward a purpose. “We’re going to outgrow this,” Bican stated privately, glancing around the conference room of the Princeton library. “The trouble is finding somewhere bigger that won’t charge for the space.”

by Walter Scott Hudson, New Patriot Journal

BLOOMINGTON, MN – As President Obama delivered the State of the Union address in Washington, a gubernatorial debate took place in Minnesota hosted by the Minnesota News Council and the League of Women Voters. A clear dichotomy emerged surrounding the issue of local government aid (LGA), a state-level redistributive funding mechanism which could be characterized as municipal welfare.

WKBT, a local CBS affiliate, reports many Minnesota cities rely upon local government aid from the state to hold down property taxes and fund essential services like police and fire departments. In the gubernatorial debate, which was recorded Wednesday by the New Patriot Journal, local government aid was first evoked by State Representative Paul Thissen, a Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) candidate. Responding to a question regarding property taxes, Thissen stated he would like to see them replaced by state-level taxes, effectively institutionalizing local government aid as the primary municipal funding mechanism. Marty Seifert, Republican Minority Leader in the State House, countered with a call for restructuring local government aid to make it more needs-based. “We have four cities that get half the LGA. LGA was never intended to be the hammock that it is now for local government. It was intended to be an equalizer for very poor communities that didn’t have a property tax base.”

The issue later became heated between Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, DFL and State Representative Tom Emmer, GOP. (Note: this writer has served as a volunteer for Emmer for Governor.) Answering a question regarding how state government should respond to home foreclosures, Emmer said he would get the economy moving again by setting budget priorities. Emmer called out the City of Minneapolis, and thus Rybak, for laying off police officers while the City Council received a raise. Rybak fired back at his next opportunity, blaming Emmer and the state legislature for cutting local government aid and endangering essential services. When Emmer regained the floor, he called for restructuring government to eliminate redundancies and make Minnesota more competitive for business.

In an October interview on US Web Talk Radio, Minneapolis firefighter John Ackerman (speaking on his own behalf and not as a representative of the City of Minneapolis or the Minneapolis Fire Department) described how essential services were perpetually threatened by the city’s reliance on local government aid. At that time, according to Ackerman, layoffs in the fire department had been avoided only because the city provided temporary funding while waiting for a federal grant. “In two years’ time, unless anything changes, we’re still in the same boat. We don’t have dedicated funds,” Ackerman said, adding Minneapolis already lags behind national standards for firefighters per capita.

WKBT reports Winona Mayor Jerry Miller, Rybak, and other officials held a press conference Thursday to convey the importance of local government aid. “So far, we haven’t had to affect police or fire,” Miller was quoted, positioning himself and allied mayors against the state to secure funding.

by Walter Scott Hudson

Skimming the State of the Union address from last night, these tidbits stood out:

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America’s families have been dealing with for decades, the burden of working harder and longer for less, of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

…

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn’t, or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.

Actually, many people are angry because they do understand why Wall Street gets bailed out while Main Street is bowled over. Many people are angry because they do understand why they work harder and longer for less. Many people have woken up to the hidden tax of inflation perpetuated by the Federal Reserve System and enabled by Congress. Many people are wise to the good cop / bad cop routine bankers and politicians have played with the purchasing power of their dollar. Many people get that printing fiat currency ad infinitum and racking up the national debt is unsustainable and tantamount to a regressive tax against the poor and middle class. Many people understand, as President Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation’s goods, services and information.

Fortunately, many people understand such job-creation is illusory. Who is left to cover the cost of maintenance once these projects are complete? Where will these jobs go after completion? By touting this “accomplishment,” President Obama counts on people not differentiating production from subsidization and not understanding the fact they pay for the Recovery Act with the reduced purchasing power of their dollar.

[Healthcare] is a complex issue. And the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering, “What’s in it for me?”

This is an amazingly arrogant sentiment. Obama here presumes the only reason people are skeptical of his proposed health care reform is because they do not understand it. Aside from demeaning the intellectual capacity of the electorate, Obama’s presumption precludes the possibility people do understand his proposed reform and simply disagree with it on principle.  Equally disturbing is his implication Americans only care “what’s in it for them,” precluding the possibility people are concerned how expanding their own entitlement might result in effects beyond today and themselves. Does it not stand to reason, if Americans were truly fixated on narrow self interest, they would overwhelmingly support their own entitlement? Does it not stand to reason opposition to such entitlement reflects concern over long-term sustainability?

Put another way, Obama’s sentiment might read, “I know it’s hard for you folks to comprehend, but I’m trying to take care of you.” Such an attitude is unbecoming a public servant. The burden is not on President Obama to explain his plan, and on We the People to listen, but on him to listen to us.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC conducted an exit poll in Massachusetts Tuesday night which indicated the lack of a “public option” in the last known Senate version of the health care bill contributed to Scott Brown’s victory. 82% of respondents who voted for Obama in 2008 and then Brown on Tuesday stated they support the public option. 86% of Obama voters who stayed home from the polls also stated they support the public option. Over half of respondents in both categories, those who voted for Brown and those who stayed home, said Obama is not doing enough to deliver on the change he promised during the campaign.

Forgetting for the moment this poll was conducted on behalf of three “progressive” organizations, including MoveOn.org, what should we take away from it? It may be a mistake to disregard these numbers. When taken in consideration alongside reaction on record from Democratic supporters to the exclusion of a “public option,” along with the presence of a sizable faction within the left-wing which has demanded an outright single-payer system, it seems sensible to speculate a disillusioned Democratic base is perhaps as responsible for Brown’s victory as an emboldened libertarian uprising. This makes sense when compared to the model established in Republican support when the GOP was the majority; the failure of Republicans to live up to their articulated ideals led to disillusioned conservatives who withheld support and essentially enabled Democratic victories.

If one can move past an inherent suspicion of the source, these numbers offer some sobriety to the elation following Brown’s historic ascent to the Senate. While it is true, as articulated in the above shown video from Minnesota Majority, that Scott Brown’s victory “was a referendum on freedom,” it may also be true it was a referendum from some quarters to the contrary. Understanding this, at least accepting it as a possibility, may be key to crafting successful campaigns throughout this year.

The greatest danger in the wake of Brown’s victory, in this writer’s opinion, is assuming an air of manifest destiny. Candidates for liberty must pursue an aggressive campaign which forces statist opponents toward the center, depriving them of support from their entitlement-hungry base. Speaking from the perspective of the Republican Party, the sentiment has been oft expressed that Republicans have not distinguished themselves from Democrats, been “me too” luke-warm alternatives, and thus enabled the message to be crafted by opponents. There is an opportunity this year to turn that phenomenon on its ear. Brown’s victory offers evidence.

by Walter Scott Hudson

Glenn Beck has taken to declaring on his radio and television programs his unwillingness to trust the political conversions of incumbents to something resembling a Tea Party paradigm, especially the closer we get to the 2010 mid-term election. His is a sensible position. As the recent touting of President Barrack Obama’s “it’ll be on C-SPAN” broken campaign promise reminds us, politicians lie, especially in an election year.

In the wake of Scott Brown’s historic ascent to Massachusetts senator, the point becomes more relevant than ever. As Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia said when the results were in, “In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process.” Webb went on to call for a halt to that process until Brown can be seated in the Senate. Indeed, the message to Congress from the people of Massachusetts, a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1, is clear and likely indicative of the tide to rise in November. There is little doubt many incumbents will recognize this and adjust their rhetoric accordingly. However, it is hard to argue such conversion will be based on anything other than the same self-interest which has guided their conduct so far.

This writer highly recommends marking January 19th as the point beyond which no shift in incumbent behavior will affect voting decisions.  Look at records. Look at what has been said and done to this point. Incumbents have clearly shown us who they are and what they believe in. The message of Brown’s victory ought not be “shape up or ship out.” It is far too late for that. Every kid caught with their hand in a cookie jar is “sorry.” Once the deed is done, the punishment may not be justly commuted. Forgive any incumbent whose repentance is coupled with a refusal to run for reelection. Short of that, don’t buy it.