posted November 18, 2009
A friend called several days ago and during the course of our conversation he mentioned Governor Palin's new book, commenting, "Don't you think the title 'Going Rogue' will turn off a lot of people so they won't read any further?" I replied, "Her picture's on the cover; who cares what the title is?"
Maybe there was a reason, when I was feeling a little puny a month or so ago and joked that I was probably coming down with the swine flu, a friend got that twinkle in her eye, the one that says I'm fixin' to catch it, and said I had that half right.
Going rogue ... an interesting statement. We normally think of a "rogue" as someone who has separated himself from the herd or group of related individuals for some reason and typically operates outside of behavioral norms of the group. I'm okay with that. It's about time we see someone who isn't among the herd of our elected elite and their appointed functionaries. It's refreshing to see new vision come to the political scene.
On May 5th of this year, 2009, John Jay Hooker spoke before the judiciary committee of our Tennessee Senate. This was in relation to the current, unconstitutional, in my opinion as well as that of many others, method of selecting Supreme Court judges. He made an interesting general statement, "Our Tennessee Constitution was written by non-lawyers to be read by non-lawyers." To borrow an expression from our friends the Brits, Mr. Hooker is spot on. Political gadfly or no, I like Mr. Hooker. He has heart.
If we look at our Tennessee Constitution, right there in the beginning we have:
ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights.
Section 1. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.
Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Article I, section 1, is where the name for our do-it-yourself constitution indefeasibility kits comes ... tar, feathers, rails, pitchforks, torches, and more to come as time goes by. It's also interesting that our Tennessee forefathers thought enough of the rights of individuals they put them right there in the beginning of our state Constitution.
I submit that ease of understanding, to be understood by non-lawyers, was also the intent of the founders for our U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Back in the stone age, when we were actually taught civics in school, we had to memorize such things as the preamble to the Declaration and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. From our own Declaration of Independence, the one signed on 4 July 1776, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Last week Congressman Lincoln Davis was interviewed by a Knoxville radio station about his vote on the House health care bill. The day before, former Senator Frist was likewise interviewed on the same program. Dr. Frist spoke about health care reform and what needs to be done by government. Congressman Davis stated he voted against the reform bill because his constituents wanted him to do so.
Neither of these long time elected officials stated what constitutional authority congress has for imposing such mandates upon tax paying citizens.
Senator Alexander has publicly stated congress needs to take a step-by-step approach to reducing health care costs. Senator Corker speaks of concerns for unfunded mandates and higher taxes to result from proposed health care legislation. Georgia Congressman Nathan Deal seems to be almost the only one of the regional bunch to bring up the question of constitutional authority. Our own Congressman Wamp is a sponsor of a bill that would require exactly that, citation of constitutional authority, for all legislation.
We've heard the outrage over a congressman calling the current President a liar, but there was a movie made during the term of our previous President depicting his assassination as well as constant accusations of unconstitutional action on his part. Similar complaints about our current President are shouted down, as his approval ratings head into the tank. We've seen "leadership" of the republican party express concerns about unfunded mandates, budget deficits, and higher taxes. We've seen democrat "leadership" attempting to cram what most tax payers don't want down our collective throats in their zeal to gain further control over our wallets.
And only one elected official that I've been able to find has the courage to ask what specific constitutional authority congress has to mandate all citizens purchase health insurance under the threat of being fined and jailed if we don't. This, just for the health care issue.
Why aren't we hearing more questions about constitutional authority for all proposed legislation? Why isn't every piece of legislation required to cite constitutional authority in its introduction?
We have a constitution. Don't like it? Read article V. The procedure for change is there.
But no, in their spending orgies and attacks on our wallets like ducks on a junebug our elected elite completely ignore that wonderful document ... to the detriment of our nation, our society and our heirs.
Our nation was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy as some would attempt to have us believe. Our elected officials from bottom to top take an oath to defend our constitution, as do most other government employees. Is anyone ever required to rescind their oath?
Tennessee has a rich history peppered with rogue sons such as William Blount, John Sevier, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, and others. Sam Houston and David Crockett went on to help Texas gain independence from Mexico. David Crockett made a famous speech to congress during his service there specifically addressing the issue of using public treasure for the feel good projects of individual congressmen. But Tennessee is not alone in our nation's history with respect to rogues.
In his Gettysburg address, President Lincoln spoke to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" ... the founders and their statement concerning governments instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...
Perhaps "going rogue" isn't a bad thing. Going rogue is not the easy route, nor is it for the faint of heart. It's a path that requires courage to take.
Royce E. Burrage, Jr.
Royce@Officially Chapped.org
* * *
It would seem that Sarah Palin used a poor choice of words in the title of her book, Going Rogue. In Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of rogue is given thusly: a vagrant, tramp, dishonest or worthless person; scoundrel, an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation; being vicious or destructive.
I feel sure that is not what she meant to apply to herself. Most people think that rogue means someone who does not follow set goals and regulations, and falls out of the loop.
Mildred Miller
* * *
Ms. Miller,
Sarah Palin used "Going Rogue" for the title of her book because it was a term often used by her McCain/Palin campaign handlers whenever she strayed from the playbook she was handed. If she wanted to change the content of a speech or differed in what she felt she should do for an appearance, she was told, "You're going rogue on us, Sarah."
Frankly, the McCain team ran an absolutely horrible campaign. Sarah previously won an election in a state where 70% of the voters are Independent. She brought to the table far more experience and knowledge of national security, energy, and balancing budgets than Obama. She and her entire family were also the victims of one of the most hurtful, vicious, and expensive witch hunts ever witnessed before--or after--an election. In retrospect, perhaps the Republicans would have been better served to let Sarah "go rogue" after all.
Now we hear that AP has assigned 11 reporters to "fact-find" her book? Really? One has to wonder where these AP reporters were when the Obama and Biden books hit the stores and were rife with inaccuracies and exaggerations.
Frankly, someone out there must be terribly afraid of little Sarah Palin, since it took only two reporters to bring down President Nixon.
Mya Lane
* * *
Sarah Palin whines too much to be a rogue. I would guess a "rogue" would not complain and whine on a daily basis about everything.
C'mon Sarah, it all cannot be someone else's fault. Take a lesson from Hilary's book, take it like a man, be quiet and let your actions do the talking, not just lip service. Anyone can talk the talk; not many can walk the walk.
Veronica Maradis
* * *
We use language to communicate and defining our terms from the beginning is all important in the art of communication and learning. The definition to the word "rogue" is contained in the Webster's Dictionary, and has been adequately defined in previous posts. As is the case in many posts on this site applauding so-called "conservative" candidates, the uninformed use words they don't understand and show their ignorance in the process. Being a "rogue" is not something that we should raise our children to be.
The former governor of Alaska couldn't even finish one term in office, but we are told that she has courage. If teenage pregnancy of a daughter is an indication of an irresponsible parent, Sarah Palin fits the mold. Had Chelsea Clinton became a teenage mother during the first Clinton campaign, I can only imagine the outcry from the "know nothings" er...conservatives.
Sarah Palin doesn't "sweat the small stuff" and doesn't have the courage to stay in the political "hunt" but had rather slink from controversy and whine about unfair treatment, which is typical of the current rank and file Republicans. Meanwhile, they dare not even speak the name Ron Paul.
Personally, I hope the modern conservatives (Trotskyites) continue to promote these types of candidates. For Mr. Burrage to associate Sarah Palin with the likes of Davy Crockett and Andrew Jackson (two Democrats) is laughable. Next thing we know he'll be telling us that Robin Smith was at Lexington and Concord. As a very respectable Republican lady told me a year ago, "Sarah Palin is the typical woman a Republican male looks for...pretty, ignorant, and easily manipulated."
Stephen Durham freethinker1963@yahoo.com
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |