tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70295629339273893102024-02-08T10:25:29.920-06:00Wade Brown 2012Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-28876217414993128882013-12-07T08:17:00.001-06:002013-12-07T08:17:11.764-06:00Wade Brown for Congress - 2014!Thanks for visiting my 2012 blog! Though the information from my 2012 campaign for Congress remains relevant today, if you want to see what I'm up to for 2014, go here: <a href="http://www.wadebrownforcongress.com/">www.wadebrownforcongress.com</a><br />
<br />
Best regards!<br />
<br />
-WadeWade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-84025072873837457082012-05-30T02:38:00.000-05:002012-06-01T06:03:16.195-05:00Thank You!First: A deep and heartfelt thanks to everyone who helped in this campaign. Many gave of their time or treasure or both, and we experienced safe travel and grace under the covering of many prayers. At our gathering this evening, I called many of you by name, even in your absence, and thanked you publicly for your invaluable help.<br />
<br />
Second: Congratulations to Mike Conaway and Chris Younts for their first and second place finishes, and to Mr. Conaway an additional word: We are watching you, sir! We expect you to hold the line and we will hold you accountable if you do not. Please, therefore, with our blessing and many prayers on your behalf, be strong and Represent us well.<br />
<br />
Finally: I am very well pleased with the outcome! For those of you who poured yourselves into the campaign, be encouraged, because we positively earned 7,544 votes, and each one is of considerable worth.<br />
<br />
Think of the obstacles we faced in this campaign:<br />
<br />
1. I had been away from Texas for more than a decade, serving in the Marine Corps. When I arrived home last July, I did not know a single person who was involved in politics (beyond voting) - not one.<br />
<br />
2. Besides family and a few local friends (most of my old Texas friends live elsewhere in the state), we had zero name recognition.<br />
<br />
3. We had zero full-time staff, zero paid staff, all volunteers throughout the entire campaign.<br />
<br />
4. We were outspent by the incumbent by over 100-to-1, yet had more than 1/7th of his votes. We were outspent by the second place winner by about 7-to-1, yet had well over 1/2 of his votes.<br />
<br />
Our significant returns, despite limited campaign funds and a lack of initial name recognition, became evidence of a knowledge that has been growing in my bones: We are as a society not satisfied with money-based politics; we are rejecting the old ways of earmarks and special interests and soft corruption. We want a true Representative whose loyalty runs to the Constitution, and to the people of his District, and to his own core convictions. Indeed, we demand that our entire House of Representatives be so. In this we proved our conservatism: the discipline and strength to do more with less, and to win votes from every corner of the District.<br />
<br />
In sum, we not only planted seed in this campaign, we put down roots.<br />
<br />
I hope that each of you has grown deeper and stronger as a result of being involved; I know that I have. <br />
<br />
This belief remains: That a time is now at hand when we must intentionally self-govern, and make the hard choices that have been put off for a generation or more. The viability of our economy, the financial freedom of our children, and the integrity of our national standing are all at stake. Now is the time to "put on the full armor" and press even harder in the fight for our country, to defend our freedoms, and protect our Constitution. "Let us run to the battle!"<br />
<br />
May the Lord guide and keep us all as we so endeavor.<br />
<br />
Godspeed,<br />
<br />
Wade<br />
<br />
<br />Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-60281981968643174242012-05-29T07:51:00.000-05:002012-05-29T09:16:36.705-05:00On Iran<b id="internal-source-marker_0.746504643233493"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">[This post is written in response to </span><a href="http://wadebrown2012.blogspot.com/2012/01/message-to-supporters-of-chris-younts.html" target="_blank">a comment posted here.]</a></span></b><br />
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><br />
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am a Constitutional conservative, </span></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">and the Constitution gives us three contexts with which to work with other nations. We can be at peace, or at war, or we can grant letters of marque and reprisal (I believe Ron Paul is the only Congressman who has submitted such letters in recent history. Also, <span style="color: #222222; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am not a big fan of alliances and I believe that we are engaged in a few that we ought not be engaged in; but this is a different topic and also involves discussion of the 17th Amendment, etc.)</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Founders could not foresee a type of war (specifically nuclear war) in which opposing states could annihilate each other in less than an hour. A reasonable response to a nuclear world that is still, in my opinion, significantly in line with the Constitution is the War Powers Resolution (arguably written to avoid a situation like Vietnam), which allows the President to act quickly in cases of “national emergency,” but which limits the time with which the President can employ troops without further Congressional authority. (Note that I say “significantly” and not “completely”: neither the Constitution, nor the the Founders, nor our own Western forms of diplomacy prior to 1973 acknowledged a formal concept embodied by our present “Authorization for the Use of Military Force.” Such an “Authorization” is in my view an abdication of responsibility and sets a Constitutionally unworkable foundation upon which to conduct military actions.)</span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Under this rubric, I hold that the recent attacks on Libya were, under our form of government, un-Constitutional for two basic reasons: 1) We recognized the State of Libya as sovereign, if in no other way than by virtue of its de facto status in the United Nations; and 2) The President never made the argument, behind closed doors or otherwise (according to the Speaker of the House), that Libya’s posture represented a “national emergency.” If he </span><span style="font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">had </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> made the argument, and if our Congress </span><span style="font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">had accepted the argument, </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the next appropriate step would have been for the President to ask for a declaration of war against Libya, and the Congress could have voted on the issue. That’s the Constitutional way of justifying that our military be used. I do not believe Libya posed a “national emergency” threat to the United States; I therefore would have voted against a declaration of war, and were I in the Congress at the time the President ordered our military to attack Libya I would have vociferously objected and would have acted in line with our Constitution to oppose the President in every way possible. I use Libya as an example because it is a good model of what </span><span style="font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to do, but Libya is only the latest example in a string of un-Constitutionally founded military engagements that we have been involved in since the Declaration of Victory at the close of World War II.</span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The situation in Iran is, however, very different from that of Libya, and history in my opinion instructs us how this is so. I recently read </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. It is fascinating to read how Hitler proceeded, step by step, to gain political power and establish a national socialist dictatorship. I couldn’t help as I read to look for signs along the way that might have prompted action to stop him. At which point should someone have intervened? Did the world have to wait until he grew so powerful, the military so potent, to understand his objectives? I don’t think the world had to wait; I think the world, particularly Europe, still living with the tragedy of World War I, simply became passive and hoped that Hitler was not serious, and that he would keep his word, even as he broke it over and over again. Hitler, in </span><span style="text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mein Kampf</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, published in 1925 and 1926, had already told the world of his intentions; no one wanted to believe him. How to have stopped him? I have not formed a definitive answer from the reading of only one book and have some more study to do on the issue; a preliminary answer is that the world should have acted in a concerted fashion to stop him the very first time he clearly violated the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, possibly when he first began to mass-produce armaments.</span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What I did gain from the reading is that we should have clear criteria to determine when we should intervene militarily, and that our intervention should be done strictly and clearly under our Constitutional form of government. One of the criteria (and I finally arrive at one of your stated concerns, Iran) is that we must listen carefully to the political leadership and the political philosophy of potential adversaries. When their radical ideas become officially embedded in their policies, we must take them seriously. Iran is such a case. One of their stated goals is the eradication of Israel. We must therefore assume, based on a hard look at historical example, that they will catastrophically strike Israel, and other nations (including the United States) if they conclude that they are able to do so.</span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I do not have access to the latest intelligence, but regardless, our national position should be this: That an Iranian military attack on the state of Israel or other U.S. allies in the region will prompt a U.S. declaration of war; and that the objective of war would be the unconditional surrender of Iran. (This does not mean that we have to work unilaterally; but it also does not mean that we would only act if we could form a coalition.) Because I am conservative, I do not believe we should strike Iran, or declare war, until Iran clearly moves to attack us or our allies; I would only advocate a “pre-emptive” strike (the President acting under the War Powers Resolution) if this could be clearly proved (to my standard if I were a U.S. Representative) to be the case; and a “pre-emptive” strike would be only the first strike of the aforementioned declared war. Otherwise, our uniformed military should not be involved.</span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I welcome any questions or discussion on these topics, but readers of this blog should note that I firmly believe that the President (not just Obama, but the Office in general) has exceeded its Constitutional bounds, that the Commander-in-Chief rightfully commands primarily and almost exclusively under a declaration of war (or under the War Powers Resolution in cases of clear national emergency such as a nuclear strike), and that the peoples’ house, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the states’ house (or so it ought to be), the United States Senate, retain the Constitutional authority to engage our military, and our country, in war, and that through declaration.</span></span></b>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-2576041102300905402012-05-25T22:52:00.001-05:002012-05-28T12:27:25.019-05:00On HR 347 and Its Effect on Free Speech<br />
<a name='more'></a>[Because this is such a short piece of legislation, I've included the text in its entirety below my commentary.]<br />
<br />
Much of the controversy of this bill revolved around "imprecise language." In particular, this phrase has been an object of focus: ". . . when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts . . ." This phrase is then compared to the first criterion ("knowingly") and many analyses have concluded that this language may allow excessively broad application by Federal prosecutors, to the extent that protests can be effectively outlawed and/or their participants intimidated to the extent of suppressing their freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
I have a very different reading of the above quoted portion of the bill. <br />
<br />
It is simply saying that in order to be held accountable under the proposed law, someone would have to 1) knowingly engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, 2) with intent, and 3) that <i>the conduct would actually have to have the effect </i>of impeding and disrupting the orderly conduct of government business. You can break the phrase up two ways, and they both lead to this interpretation. The first is: ". . . when such conduct in fact impedes or disrupts . . ." The second is: "so that such conduct in fact impedes or disrupts . . ." The way it reads actually forces the prosecution to show that government business was disrupted or impeded, <i>in addition to</i> "knowingly and with intent."<br />
<br />
If I thought the bill even remotely infringed on our rights, I would never be able to support it, but it strikes me as a solid, common-sense piece of legislation that is, in fact, well written and fairly clear. It does not outlaw protests or excessively insulate the public from the ability to protest at or near certain events, it simply makes clear that such protests cannot (and should not) subvert or take the place of the orderly governing of ourselves. <br />
<br />
Provided that there was an actual shortcoming in existing law, either through lack of content or lack of clarity, that was compelling enough to warrant its improvement, I would have voted in favor of this bill.<br />
<br />
Because my opinion of this bill runs counter to that of many of my Tea Party friends, I would certainly like to hear varying opinions. Accordingly, I invite any opponents of the bill to submit a comment or question to open the topic up to further discussion.<br />
<br />
The text of the bill:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
An Act</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
<ttitle>To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.</ttitle></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><em>Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,</em></ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<h3 style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left;">
<center>SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.</center></h3>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<br />
<center style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.</center><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">`(a) Whoever--</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">`(c) In this section--</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and</ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul>`(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.</ul>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-31305042569148353782012-05-25T14:56:00.001-05:002012-05-25T21:43:52.418-05:00On HR 1540 - the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<h3 style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml" target="_blank">Mike Conaway voted for the NDAA</a><span style="font-weight: normal;">; </span>I would have voted against it.<a name='more'></a></span></h3>
<h3 style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: left;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: small; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is Sec 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, House Resolution 1540 as Engrossed in the House (EH).</span></span></h3>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Since its passage, this section (under a different number on the final bill) of the NDAA has been rightfully struck down by the courts.</span></div>
<h3 style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.</span></h3>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Congress affirms that--</span></ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;</span></ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);</span></ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--</span></ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or</span></ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and</span></ul>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;"><ul><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.</span></ul>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">Congressman Conaway </span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">voted for the version of the bill that included this text. As a Constitutional conservative, I could never have voted for any bill that included ceding to the President the overly broad authorities of the AUMF, either in its original version or in the context of this bill.</span>
</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm" target="_blank"><b>The AUMF</b></a> included the following in Section 2: </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those </span></div>
<pre><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons."</span></pre>
<pre><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The AUMF was an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Congress; any bill that leaves the use of force against "persons [the President] determine[s]" has attempted to provide to the Executive un-Constitutional authorities. The NDAA extends this beyond the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 and would have it go to "the end of hostilities."</span></pre>
<pre><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></pre>
<pre><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No Constitutional conservative could ever vote to approve a measure like this and I could not vote for a Representative who would partake in giving to any President - and certainly not President Obama - these authorities.</span></pre>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-42892249904578668952012-05-24T16:15:00.000-05:002012-05-28T12:31:29.440-05:00On CISPA - HR 3523<b id="internal-source-marker_0.9051758151035756"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml" target="_blank">Mike Conaway voted for CISPA</a><span style="font-weight: normal;">; </span>I would have voted against it.</span></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></b><br />
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Analyzing CISPA is the perfect opportunity to put in print an overview of how I would make legislative decisions.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Each Congressperson has a staff. A key role of my staff would be to read and analyze bills, and report their findings to me. For readers who haven’t had a staff working for them (I was privileged to have a very senior staff at the 2d Marine Division), this is a huge benefit to understanding and trying to predict the consequences of a policy, regulation, or law. The life experiences, skill sets, and wisdom of a staff can provide invaluable perspective to a decision-maker. As your Representative, I would of course retain the decision-making authority with regard to my vote on each and every bill under review; and, of course, I would retain the responsibility for my decision, regardless of the consequences.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On a complex bill such as CISPA, I would certainly like to hear multiple perspectives, including those from knowledgeable Information Technology advisors, as well as legal advisors, with regard to some of the included language. However, since I do not have the benefit of a staff, and since it is reasonable for a prospective voter to ask my opinion on any bill, I will provide my current take on CISPA.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After reading this bill through at least three times (some parts many more times), and studying its language very carefully, in my present understanding I would have to vote against it. Page 5, Line 3 (see HR 3523 RFS as it was approved by the House and has been referred to the Senate) has the following text: “use of cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such entity; . . .”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This short phrase has numerous problems:</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1) It does not line up with a restriction listed on Page 3, Lines 3-5 where the shared information has to be “consistent with the need to protect the security of the United States;”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2) It allows private cybersecurity providers and self-protected entities to determine for themselves what information meets the criteria of being a “cyber threat;”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3) It appears to allow the information, which may be either weakly or improperly identified, to be shared with “any other entity, including the Federal Government.”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Certainly, private companies are already encouraged and protected in reporting violations of law. We need no new legislation to provide this lawful action on the part of private companies. But this bill seems to open up varying types of information to an excessively broad category of entities. This, and additional internal inconsistencies prove it to be a poorly written bill, regardless of its intended consequences.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I therefore would not be able to support it. </span></b>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-74820957047361864702012-05-15T05:52:00.001-05:002012-05-23T06:59:28.713-05:00Tough, Clear, SingularLast week I sat down with the San Angelo Standard Times editorial board. It was a very pleasant and wide-ranging discussion, and I was able to articulate what I have come to believe may very well be the only solution to our current debt crisis.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First we have to start with a clear, objective view of the problem. This video is indispensible in establishing that starting point:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/EW5IdwltaAc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
What can I do as a U.S. Representative?<br />
<br />
1. Join with like-minded Congressmen to form a committed nucleus. In military terms, this group of committed, like-minded individuals is the Center of Gravity for Congressional action and therefore the basis for any truly effective change. For brevity, I will refer to this group as the Coalition for the remainder of this article.<br />
<br />
2. Communicate from the Coalition to the President (whoever he/she may be) that we expect and will fully support any broad-based proposal that balances the budget within that President's current term of office. This is an absolute standard, for the following reasons: 1) Balancing the budget will require a national level of vision, inspiration, and leadership that can only come from the bully pulpit of the Presidency. Think Churchill and the rallying of Great Britain. 2) The "current term of office" allows a four-year period to balance the budget. A lengthier proposition (five years, ten years) is unacceptable because it will be subject to changing political winds; it is not likely that a coherent plan could survive beyond one Presidential term, because it is not likely that the President in this case would be re-elected (again, think Churchill).<br />
<br />
3. In the event that the President abdicates the responsibility of presenting this balanced budget plan, work within the Coalition and the broader Congress to pursue one of the following Legislative solutions (listed in my order of preference): <br />
<br />
Option 1) An across the board spending cut, evenly divided across four years (about 10% per year) that applies to every single budget line item - no exceptions. Reasoning: If we shrink all government spending proportionally, we are more likely to gain multi-partisan support. Since there will be no "favored" class of expenditures, no Congressperson can say that they or their constituents are disproportionately affected. Yes, this will be painful, but it will be our duty to lead the country through this, particularly if the President has failed to do so. <br />
<br />
Option 2) A federal "life support" bill that maintains minimal yet necessary federal expenditures such as customs/border control, defense and air traffic control and that also appropriates funds to pay our creditors so that we will not default on our national obligations. All remaining federal line-items would temporarily cease and we as a Coalition would publicly re-focus attention back to the President as the necessary and proper office to produce a balanced budget plan. Reasoning: In order to pass a bill like this, we must remove the specter of "national default" as a topic of conversation. Note that this is not my preferred course of action, because I will state plainly that under this plan, those programs termed "mandatory" spending, including Social Security and Medicare, would cease until such time as the President provided the required balanced-budget plan. I understand the political risk of this statement; I also understand the pressures that would be created under this scenario. Yet, barring the acceptance of Option 1) above, this becomes by necessity the next option.<br />
<br />
Option 3) Legislation that ceases all federal spending, and accompanying public statements from the Coalition imploring the President to provide an acceptable balanced budget plan. Yes, this constitutes a complete cessation of spending, a "government shut-down." This is obviously not my preferred option, but I am running as a candidate whose consistent message is: If we do not control ourselves voluntarily - i.e., shut ourselves down - we will be shut down in ways that will be uncontrollable and catastrophic. We do not want our economic future imposed upon us by external forces.<br />
<br />
There is a fourth option, which I find unacceptable and will never support. Interestingly, it is the only option that the incumbent, Mike Conaway, has said he will implement: Option 4) Continued deficit spending (adding to the national debt.) with no clear plan to stop or even slow down.<br />
<br />
We have together as a nation gotten ourselves into this mess; we must own it and take responsibility for it. We have a tough road ahead, but not an impossible road. It is our privilege to take on the challenge of balancing our budget, and it will be our joy in the end to experience the fruits of this labor: When the world knows that the United States is back in the hands of fiscal conservatives, that our national economy is solvent, the markets will surge, employment will increase, entrepreneurship will thrive, and we will be able to do that which is honorable: pass along to our children and grandchildren a nation that is in better condition than we found it.<br />
<br />
This is part of my vision for our country. If you see this issue as I do, you can vote for me in the primary election on May 29, 2012. Better yet, you can act today, and cast your vote in early voting, which is open from now through May 25th.<br />
<br />
Godpseed-Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-36849065898473813512012-04-13T23:55:00.002-05:002012-04-13T23:55:50.162-05:00Conaway Vows to Keep on Spending!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Go to the 2:03 mark and listen to our Representative giving up on the fight before it's even begun!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://2.gvt0.com/vi/n-n-UNq_ad4/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n-n-UNq_ad4&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n-n-UNq_ad4&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
A "CR" is a Continuing Resolution, which really means a <i><b>Continuing Lack of Resolution</b>. </i>It means a complete failure to tackle the tough problem of excessive spending, it means passing the buck - literally - to the next generation. Congressman Conaway is telling you plainly what he's going to do: spend in 2013 at the same rate we're spending in 2012.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
How much are we spending in 2012? In February 2012, we had a world-record, highest deficit in the history of mankind<a href="http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf" target="_blank"> <b>$231 billion deficit.</b> </a> That's $738 for every man, woman and child in this country - <i>in one month.</i> In March we had a <b>$198 billion deficit.</b> That's right, in two months, almost half a trillion dollars in deficit spending. And this is the level of spending that Congressman Conaway is telling you that he will support. Why? "We have to keep the government going," of course.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
What we really need is for someone to actually <b>hold the line</b> and <b>force accountability</b> into the national decision-making process. This is what I've been hearing from you on the campaign trail: "We, the truly reasonable people of this country, are ready to solve this problem <i><b>now!" </b></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i><b><br /></b></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This is a false dichotomy: "Either we pass a CR or the government shuts down." Clearly, neither of these choices is acceptable. But if the President - whoever is elected - cannot lead us to a solution with the power of the bully pulpit, the House that Represents the people must act to stop this runaway government train.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If you vote for me, beware: I will demand a balanced budget, and I won't wait for a Balanced Budget Amendment to force me to act. This is our country, in which we govern ourselves. It is our country, where we are free to do the right thing, even if it is hard. </div>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-68599341168571946732012-04-04T22:58:00.001-05:002012-04-04T23:02:21.349-05:00Wade's Agenda in Office<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The following is a simplified list of my priorities. It is not all-inclusive, nor is it arranged in a specific order of priority. The "top priority" for my campaign will be a "moving target," depending on a variety of factors. However, I intend to work <b>every one of these issues</b> in a systematic and enduring fashion.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Many of these issues are very significant and will not be solved in the short term. A capable Congressional staff under experienced leadership, a willingness to be bold on the part of the Representative, and a resolute sense of purpose in the people of the District will in my opinion be the necessary ingredients for success in obtaining the objectives of this agenda. I believe I am the candidate most likely to succeed in this endeavor, and I hope the agenda I have provided below is a good indication of what you will be helping to achieve if I have <a href="http://wadebrown2012.com/Donate-Now.html" target="_blank">your help in this campaign.</a> Happy reading and godspeed! -Wade</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.6408201884478331"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Congressional Agenda - highlights</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Balance the budget! </span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - <a href="http://wadebrown2012.blogspot.com/2012/01/this-ones-for-you.html" target="_blank">See Wade’s pledges.</a></span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Repeal Obamacare</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - This is an unconstitutional bill that was brought about through bribery and ‘soft’ extortion; it must not stand. Specific actions to repeal Obamacare will be based on the results of the Supreme Court decision and the November 2012 elections, but it must be dismantled, blocked, or nullified. </span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Establish standing orders among staff to support legislation to </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">defend against encroachments on the 2nd Amendment.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Establish standing orders among staff to support legislation to </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">protect the unborn.</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: sub; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Pass the Fair Tax</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, which includes the repeal of the 16th Amendment</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Eliminates IRS</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Eliminates “death” tax</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Eliminates violations of 4th Amendment rights</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Eliminates “loopholes” and the lobbying/corruption which attend them</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Makes the tax rate completely transparent for all people</span></span></b><br />
<div style="text-indent: 0px;">
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.6408201884478331" style="text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - Ensures that untaxed populations (including illegal immigrants, black marketeers and </span></b><b style="text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">drug </span></b><b id="internal-source-marker_0.6408201884478331" style="text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">dealers) contribute to the tax system.</span></b></div>
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.6408201884478331"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Similar to Texas sales tax: If the State of Texas can run on a sales tax, why not the nation?</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Target and systematically dismantle unfunded federal mandates to the states</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Repeal the 17th Amendment</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - this will help protect States’ rights, block unqualified Supreme Court nominees, and prevent Legislative consent to harmful international treaties.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Roll back</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the Stimulus (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act) and other Congressional obligations</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Review</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">defund</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the Department of Education; repeal No Child Left Behind</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Review</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">defund</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> harmful EPA regulations; restrict the EPA to the judgment of interstate disputes; </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">write legislation countermanding harmful agency regulations.</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Research</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and support legislation leading to </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">sound currency</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">; including the </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">auditing of the Federal Reserve</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Aggressively implement Border Security</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (currently researching which bills, if any, to co-sponsor; in the absence of an adequate bill, I will personally</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">author one for introduction)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Post all considered legislation, all votes, and explanation for votes on the Congressional website so </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">voters can see exactly where Wade stands</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> on various bills</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Establish office hours in which </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">any voter in the District can call and talk to Wade directly.</span></span></b>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-69446691992228098522012-04-04T21:45:00.003-05:002012-05-24T15:39:08.483-05:00It's Fair to Ask About Qualifications<span style="font-family: inherit;">Here are a few of mine:</span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Military/executive experience as an enlisted man and as an Officer of Marines</span><br /><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Enlisted Coast Guardsman; active duty Officer in the U.S. Marine Corps</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for more than 12 years; deployed three times. Over 20 years of combined military service.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Participated in </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">high-level decision-making</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> conferences with representation from the White House; the Department of State; the Department of Justice; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and other Federal agencies, Wade has authored operations orders dealing with </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">real-world Counter-Terrorism and Anti-Piracy operations</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Authored and otherwise produced policy affecting </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">c.</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> 25% of the Marine Corps’ total active ground combat equipment (over 2.2 billion dollars), including detailed policy-effects and Cost-Benefit Analysis. </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Wade has reviewed, analyzed, or authored dozens of complex and far-reaching policies.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Wrote budgets and served as appointed Financial Officer for Marine Corps units at the Company and Battalion levels</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Served as </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">chief procurement officer and funds executor </span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">for 1/6th of the nation’s Marine Corps active recruiting efforts (9th Marine Corps District)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Chaired multiple Feasibility of Support boards </span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">for about half of all U.S. Marine Corps infantry battalions entering Afghanistan over a two-year period; played key role in assuring that all 2d Marine Division units deploying to Afghanistan were adequately provisioned for successful deployments.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Served in combat</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> with 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines in Iraq.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Provisioned, maintained accountability policy, served as Fiscal Officer, and deployed with a 1200-man Battalion Landing Team as </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">part of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable)</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Served as a Summary Court-Martial at Sea</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">; served as Prosecution, Defense, and wrote judgment on a Marine accused and found guilty of assault on a Commissioned Officer; </span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">served as Investigating Officer </span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">in multiple investigations, conducting investigations and providing detailed investigation reports on various cases, including cases of criminal activities and cases in multi-national environments.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Served as a Marine Corps Officer Selection Officer,</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> responsible for identifying and preparing Officer Candidates</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for training and eventual Commissioning as U.S. Marine Officers.</span><br /><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Recipient of multiple personal military awards, including the Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, Humanitarian Service Medal, and others.</span></span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></b><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Personal Life</span><br />
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>- </b>Lifetime<b> conservative; </b>practicing<b> Christian; husband</b> of 20 years;<b> father </b>of four children (ages 17, 14, 11 and 7)</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Native Texan</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, born in Reagan County; lifetime Citizen of Texas;</span><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> American patriot</span><br />
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Served in both </span><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">formal and informal Christian ministry roles</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: served as full-time interim Youth Minister at First Baptist Church, Buda, Texas; served as Protestant lay leader of 3d Battalion, 1st Marines (</span><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">preached Palm Sunday Services to three companies of Marines in Baghdad</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">); served as substitute teacher and youth leader at the Protestant Chapel, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.</span><br />
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- </span><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Started and ran a successful small business</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for three years in a row immediately prior to accepting Marine Corps Commission; </span><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">currently independent and self-employed</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span><br />
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Former </span><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">high school teacher</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of Spanish and world geography.</span><br />
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">- Lifetime learner; </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">summa cum laude</span><span style="font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> baccalaureate;</span><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> currently enrolled in Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Has studied diverse subjects, including graduate work in Divinity and undergraduate work in the Arabic language.</span><br />
<span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.6408201884478331" style="white-space: normal;"></b></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.6408201884478331" style="white-space: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 16px; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"Having worked as a decision-maker with both military and civilian executives, Wade will bring senior-level retired military leaders, business leaders, and other highly-experienced professionals on-board as part of his Congressional staff to help analyze existing legislation and craft effective and enduring solutions to our problems. He will act boldly and decisively under God to restore our Constitutional form of government and the individual liberties envisioned by the Founders."</span></b></div>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-73838102645529107422012-03-14T18:01:00.002-05:002012-05-25T15:08:47.646-05:00For the First Time in *Your* History<div style="text-align: left;">
Years and years ago - actually only 40 months and a day - when the national debt was a mere $10.5 trillion (as of today's date, it is <span style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np" target="_blank"><b>$15.5 trillion</b></a></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">),</span></span> the former Comptroller General of the United States gave us this memorable quote:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">"<span style="background-color: white;">What's clear is that, while the numbers aren't final yet for the year ended Sept. 30, 2008, for the first time in the history of the United States, the federal financial hole exceeded the total net worth of all Americans. ... So we could confiscate every dime of the net worth of every American household -- including Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and every other billionaire -- and we wouldn't fill the hole." <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/interviews/walker.html" target="_blank">(<b>See the entire interview here.</b>)</a></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In short: We are worth LESS than what we OWE.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">When you're financial net worth is negative, the definition of wealth - no matter how it is defined - no longer applies. And what is our current trend, are we getting better or worse? In February 2012 <b><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/8/govt-sets-record-deficit-february/" target="_blank">we set a record for deficit spending (read "debt"): $229 billion.</a> [5/25/12 update: $229 billion has been revised to $231 billion in the current report.]</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Interesting that the President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain would co-author<b><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-and-david-cameron-the-us-and-britain-still-enjoy-special-relationship/2012/03/12/gIQABH1G8R_story.html" target="_blank"> </a><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-and-david-cameron-the-us-and-britain-still-enjoy-special-relationship/2012/03/12/gIQABH1G8R_story.html" target="_blank">this March 12 piece</a></b>, in which they write,<span style="font-family: inherit;"> "</span></span><span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As two of the world’s wealthiest nations, we embrace our responsibility as leaders in the development that enables people to live in dignity, health and prosperity." The reality is that we are no longer wealthy; "prosperity" is word they ought not use. All of our material wealth has been mortgaged by weak-minded Presidents and weak-kneed Congressmen; what we see around us, our cars, houses, property, roads, schools, malls, tall buildings, the cattle on the hills, the oil rigs in the fields, the crops in the ground - are owned by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt" target="_blank"><b>our creditors</b></a>.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So we have two "first time in history" disasters: An America that is officially upside-down and still taking on water; and a one-month deficit unparalleled in this - or any - country's history.</span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">To change it:</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">1. Know the records of the incumbent President and the incumbent Congresspersons.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">2. If it is a record of unjustified debt increases, do everything within your power to defeat the incumbent(s).</span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I run against incumbent <a href="http://www.wadebrown2012.com/CONAWAY_NATIONAL_DEBT_LIMIT_INCREASES_SINCE_2005.pdf" target="_blank"><b>Mike Conaway, who has voted for over $3.1 trillion in debt limit increases</b></a>. He voted for the the Budget Control Act of 2011 (should have been named the "Budget Out-of-Control Act") which gave us last month's $229 billion of additional debt. <a href="http://wadebrown2012.blogspot.com/2012/01/this-ones-for-you.html" target="_blank"><b>I have pledged to hold the line on additional debt.</b></a> </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; text-align: left;">Run with me up this hill; help me re-plant the flag of a defiantly free people - and maybe for the first time in *your* history, <a href="http://www.wadebrown2012.com/Donate-Now.html" target="_blank"><b>join in a political campaign.</b></a></span><br />
<br />
Pray. Give. Speak as a free person speaks: truthfully, boldly, and with the intent to act.<br />
<br />
Godspeed,<br />
<br />
WadeWade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-46305835047914678602012-02-11T13:08:00.002-06:002012-02-11T13:08:41.353-06:00Gone: The rule of law<br />
<div>
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.8121654053684324"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Take note of the following quotes; they are all from the Wall Street Journal’s Feb 10, 2012 edition dealing with the $25 billion “settlement” between the Obama administration, state attorneys general, and the five big banks (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, Citi, Ally):</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“The foreclosure deal is the product of a year of </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">secret meetings</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, confrontations, and brushes with failure.”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“It took months of </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">back-channel conversations</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> between an Obama administration official and a reluctant attorney general . . .”<a name='more'></a></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“The Obama administration took credit . . . Other possible winners include state attorneys general . . . The banks had already set aside most of the cost of the settlement.”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Banks and government officials signed off on the accord in the early-morning hours Thursday, after an aggressive push by the Obama administration melted away opposition. . .”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Mr. Donovan [Obama’s HUD Secretary] . . . told the group </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">they weren’t going to leave the room until the deal moved forward</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> . . . [a later] session lasted 14 hours.”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So Obama, the banks, and state attorneys general were all at the table. Deals were being cut; billions of dollars settled, agreements were being signed.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Who was left out? We, the people!</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Not a single member of the Legislative Branch (our representation!) was at the table. Nary a judge was to be found. Instead, the Obama administration, five banks, and a host of attorneys decided for all mortgage holders what was right and what was wrong and the resulting remedies.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As a citizen, this is what I want: If a bank – any bank of any size – is suspected of violating the law, I want due process (not secret, back-channel deals) that finds the bank either guilty or innocent, and metes out the appropriate punishment if applicable. Due process is based on properly written law which is crafted by and voted on by a Legislature (thereby reflecting the will of the people), and signed off by an Executive. Suspected breaches are tried under the law through our established Judiciary, where our expectation is that </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">justice</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> will be served. This is called “rule of law.”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If we do not demand rule of law, we will be ruled by </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">something other than law</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. In this case, a small group made a decision that affects 55% of all mortgage holders. Did they consider the 45% not covered under their “deal”? And what of this written agreement? Who will enforce it? This is indeed </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the rule of law, but the rule of the few. It is not representative government; it is big government-big bank collusion, with some attorneys general on-board and others dragged, coerced, bribed, threatened, pressured – how can we know what made them change their minds since the meetings were secret, the stakes high, a Presidential election nearing?</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mortgage trouble, though serious, pales in significance to the real issues of this debacle: Constitutional separation of powers, representative government, the usurpation of powers that belong rightfully to the states, the steady and incremental erosion of the integrity of our most fundamental institutions.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What can we the people do? We can vote for a fellow citizen to represent us in our Legislature, a citizen who will </span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">demand</span><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, on behalf of the people, that the rule of law be kept. We can vote for a President who will honor the authority of his or her Constitutionally enumerated powers. We can – and must – be involved in our government in ways we have never been involved before, supporting candidates who will in turn support us.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Alternately, we can ignore this whole issue, and allow the cancer of apathy to reduce a nation of grandeur to a hollow shell of its former greatness. And make no mistake: we are on the road to financial ruin, having promised to ourselves $120 trillion of entitlements that cannot possibly be paid.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Did we think that freedom would be easy? Did we think that tending such a rich and marvelous garden (America) would require no work? I once did, until I came to realize that our beloved country is at stake. Please help with your time (even if only an hour), prayers (even if short) and money (even if little), and I will do my utmost to win this election and serve as your faithful Representative, working to re-establish Constitutional integrity and re-invigorate the rule of law.</span></b></div>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-53273383599112410912012-01-27T00:03:00.000-06:002012-04-04T23:09:12.853-05:00This One's for You<span style="font-family: inherit;">If you elect me to be your U.S. Representative:</span><br />
<br />
<b id="internal-source-marker_0.6408201884478331"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1.</span><span style="font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will return to the Treasury all of my Congressional pay and benefits above that which I would receive were I still on active duty in the Marine Corps. In plain language, </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will not accept any pay above that which I would normally have received as a Marine</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, but will return it to the taxpayers from whom it was derived. Interpretation: I am not doing this for the money.”</span></span></b><div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2.</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will not partake of the Congressional retirement system</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, no matter how many terms I serve. Interpretation: I am not doing this so I can ‘sit back and collect.’”</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3.</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will neither buy nor sell stocks, bonds, real estate, or mutual funds</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, through a blind trust or otherwise, either directly (by myself) or indirectly (through a partnership or other entity) for the entire period that I serve in Congress, beginning with the date of the primary election, and ending one year after my final day in office. In plain language, I will not participate in insider trading or have one hair's weight of accusation leveled against me due to controversial votes or legislation. </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will not allow my position in the House to be influenced</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> by any source other than my best understanding of the founding documents of our country, my own conscience, and the people of my District. Interpretation: I will reject corrupting influences.”</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4.</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “I pledge that </span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will not participate in earmarks</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, unless more than 50% of all voters in every county (or portion of a county) of the District which I represent sign a petition for me to do so. Interpretation: An earmark can only be good if it's good for everyone; otherwise, it's a special favor to someone at the expense of everyone else.”</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5.</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> “</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I will not vote in favor of an unbalanced budget</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> unless the President who presents the budget simultaneously presents a detailed plan (with draft budgets) demonstrating a balanced budget by the end of his/her term of office. In plain language, if a President can show me how they are going to balance the budget within their current term, I will vote in favor of their budget proposal, regardless of the President's party affiliation. Conversely, if the President does not present a balanced budget or a plan to get to a balanced budget within their current term, I will vote against their budget, be they Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Interpretation: I am loyal to principle above party; it's time to spend only what we take in (and less if possible).”</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b id="internal-source-marker_0.6408201884478331"><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">6. “I will keep my oath of office in its entirety.</span><span style="background-color: #fefdfa; color: #333333; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Interpretation: I will take offenses against the Constitution seriously and do everything within my power and authority to defend the Constitution and to return the federal government to its Constitutionally limited role.”</span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<br /></div>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-2476472528901709822012-01-18T01:29:00.001-06:002012-03-06T04:09:17.049-06:00The 99-Year Scourge and the Romney Response<br />
<div>
<span id="internal-source-marker_0.9003383859526366"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">scourge [noun]: </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1:</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whip" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #2965c7; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 15px; font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">whip</span></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">; </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">especially</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">:</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> one used to inflict pain or punishment; </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2:</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> an instrument of punishment or criticism; </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3:</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> a cause of wide or great affliction [source: m-w.com]</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This may be a very wide-ranging article; if so, my apologies, but I find this ugly thing (income tax) at the nexus of many important topics, namely: privacy, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.</span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span id="internal-source-marker_0.9003383859526366"><a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastise" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #2965c7; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 15px; font-variant: small-caps; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></a><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On February 3rd, the 16th amendment to the Constitution will attain its 99th year. Like many amendments, it is short: “</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The income tax, born in 1861 in order to fund war, and having faced many court challenges over the last half of the 19th century, on February 3, 1913 made its way into our national </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">vivre</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. In its 1861 infancy, it was flat, affecting all incomes above a very low figure (c. $19k in 2011 dollars) at the same flat rate of 3%. In its post-amendment inception, it became graduated, taxing higher incomes at higher rates. The pendulum of populism, moved by the early-20th-century realities of child labor, a virtually unlimited industrial work week and enormously powerful corporations, had reached a zenith. Who said “Pass Prosperity Around” at the bottom of one of his flyers in the 1912 presidential campaign? </span><a href="http://library.duke.edu/exhibits/sevenelections/images/speex010180010-med.jpg" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">None other than Teddy Roosevelt.</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> And so, moved by these and other forces (notably the rise in the public mind that “science would solve all problems”), 42 of the 48 states eventually ratified the amendment.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As with many progressive/socialist ideals, the intended achievement requires in the end a reversion to compulsion. And so even this road to hell was paved with good intentions. Why do I use such strong language (scourge, hell, compulsion) for the income tax? Quite simply:</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1. It violates a basic tenet of the stated religion of many Americans: Many of us who take our beliefs seriously are commanded to give our “first fruits” to God. I never receive my “first fruits” when I receive a paycheck; they are withheld, and in this simple but very clear way, the federal government places itself in the position of God. In a real sense, this violates my First Amendment rights by prohibiting to me the free exercise of religion. Why can I not be billed for the taxes owed? Why is my income withheld? [The answer is somewhat disturbing: the courts held that this practice was allowable because of the practical value given to the “administration” of the tax.] What may be worse: the government forces </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">employers</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to perpetrate this violation against their employees. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2. Income tax in practice violates the Fourth Amendment, namely our right to be “secure . . . in [our] papers.” Essentially, in order to enforce the income tax, our right to privacy is forfeited. Technically, all gifts I receive (Christmas, anyone?) may be taxable; all income (that check in your birthday card) counts. Did you sell something on eBay and make some money? And so even our most mundane activities fall under the jurisdiction of this hyper-intrusive tax.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3. It is impossible for any citizen to know with certainty that they are in compliance with the law. We have all heard the statistics of how many words the Tax Code contains. It is simply a labyrinth of regulations, exceptions, loopholes and pitfalls. Is it not a basic premise that a people who live by rule of law should be able to comprehend the law in the first place?</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4. Violations of the Tax Code, when discovered, are prosecuted with absolute impunity by the Internal Revenue Service. We live in fear of audits; we dare not resist to any real degree because the consequences can be devastating.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">5. The Tax Code, and therefore the tax, are open to rampant corruption through special interest influence. The last person served in this process is the individual voter or the individual wage-earner. The first person served is the person or corporation who can manipulate the system through money or other forms of influence.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">6. Excessive progression in a tax system punishes success and rewards under-performance. For those individuals (and families) who have broken out of a poverty cycle, this comes as a bitter surprise. Hard work results in more intrusion, more tax, a higher likelihood of audit, more pressure to comply. Simply put, the harder we work, the more we are forced to contribute.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am not anti-tax. Taxes are necessary. What a tax should not do: Invade your privacy; punish your success. What a tax should not be: Prone to corruption; incomprehensible.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Texas, we get by rather well on a sales tax (though even in our great state things are changing for the worse.) A sales tax satisfies the requirements of principle: It does not invade privacy; it does not punish success; it is not prone to corruption; it is easily understandable. If an economy as large and diverse as Texas can thrive on a sales tax, why can’t we as a nation do the same?</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For these reasons and others, I favor the </span><a href="http://www.fairtax.org/" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Fair Tax.</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> The related legislation (that currently has 66 co-sponsors in the House) repeals the 16th amendment (so that we don’t end up with both an income tax </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> a sales tax) and implements a national sales tax. There simply is no more transparent, ideologically acceptable way to collect taxes than this. Once the Fair Tax is implemented, refinements, such as those found in the Purple Tax, could be considered; but the Fair Tax is well-researched, is ready to go, and is far superior to our present income tax debacle.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what does this have to do with Romney?</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1. In the non-ficition book </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-Death-Shanghai-Nien-Cheng/dp/014010870X" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Life and Death in Shanghai,</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> an oil executive’s wife is brought before the “revolutionaries” to make “confessions” of her capitalist “crimes.” There is an </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/06/specials/cheng-shanghai.html" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">exceptional review here.</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2. In Orwell’s Animal Farm, “confessions” are sought, and </span><a href="http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/6.html" style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #000099; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the “guilty” are slaughtered. </span></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (Scroll down in the link about half-way to the paragraph beginning “Presently the tumult died down.”)</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3. One can find similar trails in C.S. Lewis’ </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That Hideous Strength</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, Rand’s </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Atlas Shrugged</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, Hayek’s </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Road to Serfdom</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">4. The demand for Romney’s income tax information is essentially a demand for a “confession.” A confession that he is wealthy; a confession that he has paid minimal taxes; a confession that he is a corporate being; and in the ideology of the left, a "confession" to committing the "moral crime" of exceptional wealth.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My view: Romney should tell everyone that his income is none of their business, that he has no apologies to make because he makes his money legally, that anyone asking for the information should be prepared to publish their tax returns as well (but will not mean that he will reciprocate). Romney of course will not do this because he has no desire to abolish the income tax or the IRS. He has accepted the infringements of the system and as a powerful businessman and politician has used the system to his advantage. [Aside: I believe Santorum, Gingrich and Perry are preferrable to Romney.] In sum: Romney has no confession to make; he has committed no crime.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></div>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-23725429903818585482012-01-16T14:26:00.001-06:002012-01-16T14:47:19.359-06:00452 DoorsIn December we knocked doors for hours a day as we sought signatures for our ballot petition. It got cold a few times; the ink froze in our pens more than once.<br />
<br />
In January, we continue to knock on doors and meet people. The connections are amazing.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
I met a lady on my last outing who is the sister of a Marine General who is an acquaintance of mine. Brownwood, Texas connected through May, Texas by Quantico, Virginia via Italy. She'll have a sign in her yard, and we move forward in the game of "name recognition".<br />
<br />
I will concede that in knocking doors I have become a little worried. The thing that concerns me: the number of solid, grounded Americans - the core and living foundation of common sense and life experience - is growing old. Many of the signers of my petition were born in the 1920's. They open their doors and one can see iron mixed with the frailty. They have sharp questions for me. As with some of the Republican meetings I have attended, I am seen as a youngster - barely in my 40's. But they are glad to see someone who looks them in the eye; they are glad to hear direct answers to their questions. We will lose much when we lose the generation that was in their 20's when we faced down the tyrants of World War II. I hope enough of their iron has remained so that we may face down the challenges of our time.<br />
<br />
On occasion, behind a door we find a gold-mine of signatures. One family, who had visiting family (but who all lived in the District as it turned out) invited me in. I stood over their dinner table, the eldest son (and chef) a little impatient but tolerating the grandfather, who had many of those same, sharp questions for me. Turns out he was a minister and author, and tenaciously patriotic. Fortunately, everyone felt comfortable enough to keep eating while he and I conversed on the many weighty topics of our day. He never left his seat at the head of the table, but he signed my petition, along with all five of the other registered voters present, and I departed with everyone's well-wishes.<br />
<br />
Our campaign has very little money, very few volunteers, zero full-time staff. As the candidate, I take responsibility for these weaknesses, and they may mean much in the external world of politics. Yet the campaign is strong in those areas that are most important to me: We have integrity, and when the campaign is over I will have nothing to be ashamed of, win or lose. We have honest and good people supporting us, the kind of voters which cannot be bought or swayed by the dirtiness of the political game. We have the knowledge that what we are doing may be little, but is meet and fitting for those of us who are moved to act. We have you, the reader, getting to know us better even as you read. And we have yet a little time, to push the campaign further by word and through our activities over the next few months, feeding the possibility of a win. We may at any time receive a large donation; we may at any time welcome additional volunteers; we might gain some full-time staff. We are waiting for such things to happen, and when they do, they will land on a firm foundation. The ideals which we espouse in this campaign are the ideals of the Founders; the governance this campaign advocates is that of the Constitution.<br />
<br />
Knocking doors has been good for me, and good for Wade Brown 2012. People sense in their bones that we must change our ways or else lose the most beautiful aspects of our Republic: individual liberty, opportunity, and a peaceful and homely land in which to raise our children. As I speak to people, I feel their frustration with and utter rejection of the arrogance of the political class. They are looking for a candidate they can support, a Representative who will represent them. Most of the people I meet find that in me, which is both humbling and strengthening. To those of you who already know me and are supporting this campaign: many, many thanks, and please don't stop believing or supporting. I continue to discover that this campaign can be won, especially if all of us stay in the game.<br />
<br />
Godspeed,<br />
<br />
-w<br />
<br />
p.s. - We are at nearly 400 signatures and on track to get well over the required 500 signatures by the current deadline of February 1st, though the current deadline will likely shift even later. A heartfelt thanks to those who have helped thus far, and since there's still 15 days left to collect signatures, the more the merrier!Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-91122812829694583882012-01-15T00:15:00.000-06:002012-01-15T00:15:08.008-06:00A Message to Supporters of Chris YountsI am sending this message to address the delicate topic of being a "spoiler" in the current three-way race.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of little-known facts:<br />
<br />
When I returned to Texas in July 2011 after a dozen years of active duty in the Marine Corps, I made it a priority to go visit with Chris at the earliest opportunity. We met in late July and had a hearty, friendly discussion in which we discovered<br />
<a name='more'></a> that we saw many things in almost exactly the same light. We spoke for several hours that day at his office in San Angelo. Since I had already decided, before I ever moved home, that I would be running, I made it clear to him that I had made up my mind to run and I asked him if he was going to run again. He said he had not decided. He also said that if he decided not to run, he would throw his support behind me.<br />
<br />
I saw Chris again in August at the San Angelo Tea Party meeting. He still had not decided whether he was running. I made it known to all in attendance, as I had already been doing with family and friends all around the world, that I was definitely running, and that my decision had been fixed for several months.<br />
<br />
I announced my candidacy formally through the Brownwood Bulletin on August 29th, less than 60 days from moving back home to Texas, and less than 30 days from leaving active duty in the Marine Corps.<br />
<br />
Chris announced on October 13th, about six weeks after I announced.<br />
<br />
So what does this mean?<br />
<br />
Well, the way I interpret this situation, it looks like there are three people running who each think they can do a better job than the other two.<br />
<br />
This brings to mind an event that occurred at Marine Aircraft Group 41 a few months ago: I was asked to promote several Marines. Because I was new to the unit, I didn't know any of the Marines personally, nor had I evaluated any of them. The Marine Corps chose to promote them because they had satisfied all the requirements, including evaluations by past Staff Non-Commissioned Officers and Commissioned Officers other than myself. In order to be promoted, they needed a Commissioned Officer to perform the ceremony. Since I was their new Officer-in-Charge, I was asked to do it.<br />
<br />
Being asked to promote Marines is an honor, as any officer will tell you. I trust the Marine Corps as an organization, yet it would be me, Wade Brown at the head of the formation doing the promoting, and I wanted to do my own evaluation, a "gut check" if you will, of these Marines. This is what I did: I walked up to each of the five Marines and said, "Do you deserve this promotion?" Five Marines, one at a time, answered the question with a solid look in their eye and a firm handshake, each one saying with utmost confidence, "Yes, sir!" They did not say this out of arrogance; they said it because it was the simple truth. Had one of them hesitated, I would have questioned their readiness for the next rank and the responsibility that goes with it.<br />
<br />
One of the despicable things about politics - and one of the things that I believe keeps many good men and women from running for office - is the pressure to tout your own credentials, literally to <i>self-promote. </i>I told some folks at the San Angelo Tea Party in August, when asked about a hypothetical third candidate entering the race (since at the time it was only Mike Conaway and me), would I drop out? I answered honestly: not unless I thought the third candidate was unquestionably more qualified than me. Chris Younts is a fully qualified candidate. Furthermore, I like him personally and know that he would stick to his guns on Capitol Hill. That makes him in my opinion a superior candidate to Mike Conaway. But if someone were to ask me if I was more qualified than Chris, I would answer as my Marines answered me. Without arrogance, based on my life experience and with utmost confidence: Yes, I believe I am.<br />
<br />
This is an election for a U.S. Representative whose actions will literally have an impact on the governance of the most powerful nation in the world. I firmly believe there are many people in the 11th District who are much more qualified than I, but unfortunately - and I mean that - they're not running. I wish one of them would stand up and run because they'd get my vote. But until and unless they do, I will remain in the race. Like war, this is not a game. Things of real consequence are in the balance, and each of us must make the most sound decisions we possibly can. In that light, I ask each of you to make an objective evaluation and vote your conscience. If you feel like you need to know me better, I would be happy to meet with you. Just go to the <a href="http://wadebrown2012.com/Contact-Us.html" target="_blank">Contact Us page</a> and send me a message.<br />
<br />
With appropriate and due respect to Chris and Mike and their families, and to each of you,<br />
<br />
Godspeed,<br />
<br />
WadeWade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-7226460406358454262012-01-13T01:33:00.000-06:002012-03-06T03:38:16.687-06:00The Invisible CrossroadsCrossroads.<br />
<br />
1820 - The Missouri Compromise deferred war for 41 years, and then the debt came due. Might not it have been better to fight the Civil War earlier, when the necessary surgery would not have been so costly and the wounds so deep? Yet, the Civil War became an inevitable cataclysm because <br />
<a name='more'></a>a generation sought compromise at the expense of principle. Behind the Compromise, the divide between the states grew greater, not less, until at last the pent-up pressure exploded into violence, division, and residual damage to our own best principles of equality that have lasted, albeit in diminishing degrees, even to the present day.<br />
<br />
For students of history, the Civil War was not only a monolithic conflict over a single issue ("all men are created equal"); it was also the rending of an understanding among the first states that respected sovereign self-determination. In its aftermath, the prospect of an all-powerful central government loomed large, and many of the secondary and tertiary effects feared by the clearest political minds of nation's Founding have come to fruition in a burdensome and unresponsive federal government that has come to resemble aspects of despotism. There was a crossroads in 1820, but it was largely invisible. That generation chose compromise, and could not foresee the terrible and tragic social and political consequences.<br />
<br />
What lesson to draw? Fellow Texans, we MUST NOT give in to the compromise of our principles. We MUST NOT give in to the siren song of socialism, with all of its utopian - and demonstrably unachievable - promises. We MUST NOT accept government healthcare. We MUST NOT countenance the erosion of even the smallest promise of our Constitution. Perhaps most importantly, we MUST NOT continue going forward with the thought that "nothing can be done," and the resulting sense of helplessness and apathy that such a thought engenders. The continued compromise of individual liberties, of government takeover of private industry, of bowing down to agencies such as the EPA and IRS, of "looking away" as a corrupt Congress loses all sense of perspective, will, like the Missouri Compromise, only defer a great and horrific reckoning. We must put people in Congress who will hold the line, no matter the political cost, in order to avoid a much more dangerous path that leads eventually - even if a hundred years from now - to violent confrontation. (People will always yearn for freedom, and if sufficiently deprived of liberty, will resort to force to secure it; this, I believe, is an unchanging aspect of human nature.)<br />
<br />
There is a great discussion going on about "working together across the aisle," "bipartisanship," and "polarization." So the voter will know clearly: I'll have no part of a philosophy that accepts the "managed decline" of America. I'll not take part in mortgaging our children's future to disinterested, even antithetical, creditors. I'll do everything within my power and position as a U.S. Representative to halt the growth and intrusive power of the federal government and return it to its Constitutional limits. We have hard decisions to make, and I will not shy away from them. Further, I will be a voice recalling us to the moral foundations that are prerequisites for the functioning of a free society. No good person wants a country of corrupted morals to be powerful, even if that country is his own, because such a country will be incapable of bringing good to its neighbors around the world, and will at the same time be wholly capable of introducing wrongness of many kinds.<br />
<br />
A primary election is coming, and it is an opportunity. Your vote is YOUR vote - you can cast it how you wish. No candidate is "inevitable." You yourself, with your vote, will determine who wins. Please, therefore, vote, and vote carefully.<br />
<br />
Godspeed,<br />
<br />
-wWade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-6215073130170395062012-01-11T23:53:00.002-06:002012-03-06T03:27:01.640-06:00Conaway votes to "protect" meCongressman Conaway has a press release entitled <span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://conaway.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=273022" target="_blank">"<b style="font-size: 14px; text-align: -webkit-left;">Conaway votes to protect hard working Texans from Washington Waste"</b></a></span><br />
<br />
In order to analyze Mr. Conaway's "protection," I'll look at a couple of quotes from Mr. Conaway.<br />
<br />
Mr. Conaway Quote 1: " . . . we finally reached a fair and bipartisan compromise that meets the budget goals laid out last summer."<br />
<br />
The "budget goals" that Mr. Conaway approves are those of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which he voted for, and which included <i>a trillion dollar deficit</i>. <br />
<a name='more'></a>Consider this quote from Congressman Tom McClintock: "<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">All told, this bill [HR 2055 of Dec 2011] </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">cements total authorized federal spending for FY 2012 at $3.693 trillion with revenue of only $2.635 trillion, assuring another one trillion dollar-plus budget deficit." (See Mr. McClintock's analysis here: </span><a href="http://mcclintock.house.gov/2011/12/vote-note-hr-2055---consolidated-appropriations-act-of-2012-no.shtml">http://mcclintock.house.gov/2011/12/vote-note-hr-2055---consolidated-appropriations-act-of-2012-no.shtml</a>)<br />
<br />
Mr. Conaway Quote 2: ". . . this legislation is a tangible step forward on the march towards fiscal sanity."<br />
<br />
Mr. Conaway, how can approval of a trillion dollar deficit and <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2055enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr2055enr.pdf" target="_blank">this 486-page smorgasbord</a> of spending constitute a "step towards fiscal sanity"? You voted to borrow $146 million, to be repaid with added interest by our own children, in order to support the National Endowment for the Arts. Need I say more? [I am not against the Arts - I just don't believe the Arts justify deficit spending by a federal government that has clearly exceeded the limits of Constitutional intent.]<br />
<br />
Let's return to the title of Mr. Conaway's press release. It reads, "Conaway votes to protect hard working Texans from Washington Waste"<br />
<br />
The vote that would have protected me would have been an UNCOMPROMISING vote AGAINST deficit spending and AGAINST debt ceiling increases. <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll941.xml" target="_blank">86 Republicans voted to protect me</a>; Mr. Conaway wasn't one of them.<br />
<br />
The solution: a line in the sand behind which U.S. REPRESENTATIVES STAND, REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE and say "No more deficits! No more debt limit increases!" I have drawn my sword; I have drawn that line. Had I been in Congress for this vote, I would have provided protection not only for hard working Texans, but more importantly, I would have provided protection for our children and the generations to come. When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqpEMFK0Ixg" target="_blank">said that our greatest strategic national security threat is our national debt</a>, I believed him.<br />
<br />
My message to the voters: You need not vote for Mr. Conaway. He has had four terms in office to represent us. Just be sure to vote your conscience, and in the end our country will prosper.<br />
<br />
-w<br />
<br />Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-65894243923593774892012-01-11T00:46:00.001-06:002012-03-06T03:23:08.546-06:00When is the primary election?As of Mar 6, 2012, the primary date remains May 29, 2012. The interim map for Texas' 11th Congressional District is <a href="http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc235" target="_blank">Plan C235</a>.<br />
<br />
The best comprehensive news source I have discovered for Texas redistricting, including maps, election dates, etc, is <a href="http://www.txredistricting.org./">txredistricting.org.</a><br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
Archived entries below:<br />
<br />
As of Feb 28, 2012: The date for the primary is May 29, 2012.<br />
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />As of Feb 27, 2012: The tentative date for the primary is May 29, 2012. Some sources have said that if the three judge panel in San Antonio does not promulgate a map by March 3, the primary will be pushed to June 26. To be clear, no final decisions have yet been made.<br />
<br />
As of January 26th, 2012, the primary election is still a unified primary and will be held April 3, 2012. However, tomorrow, January 27th, there will be a conference to discuss changes. Please check back at this post for updates.<br />
<br />
As of January 11, 2012, the primary election is scheduled for April 3, 2012. However, this date may change depending on various court rulings. Return to this post for updates, or contact the Wade Brown 2012 campaign at the link below to request the most recent information:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://wadebrown2012.com/Contact-Us.html">http://wadebrown2012.com/Contact-Us.html</a>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-53469450896875785572012-01-10T22:21:00.000-06:002012-01-11T00:46:44.320-06:00Archived Redistricting InfoA very helpful blog is located here: <a href="http://txredistricting.org/">http://txredistricting.org/</a><br />
<br />
The following link shows some archived information, including some previous maps: <a href="http://wadebrown2012.com/InterimMap.html">http://wadebrown2012.com/InterimMap.html</a>Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029562933927389310.post-30214036868811759322012-01-10T22:01:00.000-06:002012-05-22T08:56:46.455-05:00Update on RedistrictingAs of April 4, 2012:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://d2o6nd3dubbyr6.cloudfront.net/media/images/PLANC235.png" target="_blank"><b>Here is plan C235,</b></a> showing the Congressional Districts.<br />
<br />
Archived info below.<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
This information up-to-date as of Mar 6, 2012:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://txredistricting.org/post/18450944153/breaking-new-interim-maps" target="_blank">Maps released Feb 28, 2012.</a><br />
<br />
Also, <a href="http://txredistricting.org/post/18567224737/list-of-key-texas-election-dates" target="_blank">here is a list of key dates.</a><br />
<br />
It is still possible for maps to be changed, etc, but most of the elections machinery is moving ahead based on the above information.<br />
<br />
Many thanks to Michael Li of txredistricting.org for his comprehensive - and fully referenced - blog.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Jan 9, 2012 regarding Texas redistricting.<br />
<br />
Bottom line: No decision was made, which means that all Texas districts, including the 11th Congressional District, are yet to be defined.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
I will continue to gather signatures to have my name placed on the ballot. Five hundred are required; I have 360+ signatures, almost entirely from Brown County, to date. The current deadline, which will probably be moved again, is February 1st. I can still use help getting signatures; the instructions are at <a href="http://wadebrown2012.com/PetitionInstructions.html">http://wadebrown2012.com/PetitionInstructions.html</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />Wade Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344090556772766057noreply@blogger.com0