What Is The Job Of An Elected Official Anyway?

Want to know why America has gone astray from its charter as envisioned by our founding fathers?

Simply ask any elected official: “What’s your job responsibility?”

The answer usually provides insight into where the problem begins.

Three years ago, a former county commissioner said: “Our job is to pave the roads, fund the schools, and fill potholes.” Based on my observations, most officials give similar answers.

They’re wrong.

Those things are important tasks we must perform in a fiscally responsible way, but they are NOT our primary job responsibility.

I apologize for being circuitous; but to appreciate the primary job of any elected official, you must first know the answer to another equally profound question:

What is the purpose of government?

I cringe when officials struggle to craft an answer that sounds sufficiently impressive. Fortunately, there’s no need to improvise.

The primary purpose of government is found in the beginning of America’s charter document, known as “THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.”

“… that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Clear as glass.

The purpose of government is to secure your God-given rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (including the right to own property). Combined, they may be summed-up in one word: Freedom.

Okay, but how does the Constitution fit in?

Conceptually, the Constitution contains bylaws to implement the Declaration of Independence. Did you know it contains restrictive covenants designed to prohibit government from intruding on your God-given rights?

For example, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”; and “the right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED [by government].”

Why? Because, energetic government threatens freedom.

Furthermore, every elected official in America takes an oath to support the Constitution. In other words, our job is to restrain government and defend your freedoms from encroachments.

You lose freedom when officials ignore their oath of office, or worse yet, believe they know better than the Constitution. They don’t.

Freedom is the absence of coercion. Nowadays, the best way to judge politicians may be by what they don’t do to you. Can you imagine the improvement if thousands of officials across America took their oath more seriously, and focused on defending you from big-government dictates?

I find it sad but amusing when my opponents argue: “That’s beyond your pay grade, commissioner.”

Really? If so, why am I required to take an oath to support the Constitution?

If my job was simply to do whatever Obama or Governor O’Malley told me to do, I could simply take an oath to support them; but I didn’t, and I won’t.

By swearing to uphold the Constitution, every commissioner takes an oath that requires him to defend you from any attempt to infringe on your Constitutional Rights.

How do you do that, you ask?

Thomas Jefferson foresaw the challenge. He wrote: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny,” and: “whenever our affairs go obviously wrong, the good sense of the people will interpose and set them to rights.”

The key word is “interpose.”  It means “To intervene, or place, or insert between one thing and another.”  

Whenever government infringes on your rights, our job is to intervene, and stand between you and the infringement in order to secure your freedoms.

Furthermore, in the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson wrote: “Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

In other words, just say “No”.

That’s what we did in Carroll County when we passed the Second Amendment Preservation Resolution; successfully defended First Amendment prayer rights; and refused to implement a Rain Tax.

Alternatively, when officials “go-along-to-get-along,” and fail to resist those who infringe on your rights, we violate our oath of office; and slowly but surely, your freedom is eroded.

What’s the job of every elected official?

I’m in the freedom business.

–Carroll County Commissioner Richard Rothschild


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Global Warming: Not About The ‘E’ Word (Environment)

Listen to propaganda from the EPA and MDE, and you would think “Climate Change” programs are about saving the environment–but you would be wrong.

I’ll start by defining a term I created: “climateer”–someone with a vested interest in believing in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Two especially interesting attributes of climateers are the facts that (a) they have no conclusive facts, but rely on anecdotal assertions like ”97% of scientists believe in climate change”; and (b) climateers are genuinely disappointed when evidence indicates their fears are exaggerated.

The fact is, exaggerated Climate Change has little to do with the E-word, i.e. the Environment…but has everything to do with the C-words: Communism vs. free-market Capitalism.

Perhaps you’re thinking… “sounds a little over the top, commissioner…”

Consider this.

The question of whether or not there is climate change is not the question. Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The more relevant questions are these: Is change exceeding regular cyclical norms? And to what extent is it anthropogenic, i.e. man-made?

Let’s return to the question of whether climate change doctrine is motivated by the E-word or the C-word.  Nothing I say will convince climateers they’ve been duped, so I’ll let the leftist “experts” tell us in their own words.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Ottmar Edenhofer, Vice-chair of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, says: “One must say clearly that we… redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Hmmm.

Harvey Ruvin, former Vice-chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, said: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.” Interesting vernacular.

Naomi Klein of The Nation magazine says: “So when [Commissioner Rothschild] reacts to… climate change as if capitalism itself were coming under threat, it’s not because [he’s] paranoid… It’s because [he’s] paying attention. … most leftists have yet to realize that climate science has handed them the most powerful argument against capitalism.”

Third Annual Conference of the World Association for Political Economy in Lang Fang, China, May 2008:  “…global ecological sustainability will be possible only with fundamental social transformations and a new global economic system organised on the principles of social ownership of land and other major means of production … only socialism and the global solidarity of all working peoples can free both humanity and the earth from the fatal threat of global capitalism.”

Are you catching these not-so-subtle undercurrents of Marxism?

A top-10 favorite comes from David Foreman, founder of Earth First and director of the Sierra Club: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects … We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Truth is stranger than fiction.

In the book “Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis by Environmentalist Chris Williams,” Williams says: “It is utterly impossible for Capitalism to view the world as a single interlocking system. “ He asserts the only political system that can holistically address the challenges of the 21st century is “Marxism.”

The frontal attack on free-market capitalism is self-evident.

They regularly change phraseology, so rebutting them is like playing a game of whack-a-mole at the Ocean City Boardwalk–as soon as you knock down one of their hysterical arguments, an increasingly ambiguous replacement argument pops-up.  Pow!

A lack of conclusive evidence forced climateers to change their vernacular four times in three decades. First, it was “Global Cooling.” Then, “Global Warming.” Next, “Climate Change.” And now, drum roll please, they have adopted their most ambiguous term. They call it “Climate Disruption.”

Cute… and sufficiently ambiguous to allow every self-appointed pantheistic climateer to wave his/her hands hysterically and yell “climate disruption.”  Every time there is a storm, hurricane, tornado, typhoon… you name it…  hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, more snow, less snow… see, it’s exactly what we warned would happen. Their diagnosis is always the same, and it reminds me of the snake-oil salesmen of the 1850’s who went from town to town selling the same “ointment” for anything and everything that ails you.

Climateers also shifted vernacular related to “Sea Level Rise.” In an effort to band-aid unsustainable hysteria, it’s now called “Storm Surge.” Convenient.

There you have it. Hilarious, pathetic, and a threat to America and individual liberty.

Climate Change is all about attempts to put a stake through the heart of America’s free-market economy, and replace it with a government-controlled Marxist economy… all in the name of social justice… to save the world from the threat of free market capitalism.

Remember, this was in their own words, not mine.

It’s time to stop scaring our children and refocus them on the morality of free markets and individual liberty.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

A (Socialist) Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing–Part 2

In my previous article on “Social Justice”, I began to expose the “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.” I am referring to noble sounding, but ill-conceived, government initiatives that insidiously displace individual rights and freedoms with collectivist goals. This can be expected as evidenced by the fact the insignia for the Fabian Socialists is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Certainly, everyone wants “justice”. Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with the words “with liberty and justice for all.” However, the mischief begins when the word “SOCIAL” is inserted in front of the word “JUSTICE”.

America was founded on the concept of liberty and justice for each and every individual, and our declaration begins with the premise that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Although we are created equal, there are no guarantees of equal economic outcomes under our free enterprise form of economy and government.  Find a country where everyone is economically “equal”, and I’ll show you a government where nobody has any freedom.

The Social Justice movement works from the basic premise that global free-market capitalism is “unsustainable” and is the source of all evil because it does not lead to equal outcomes.

I know what you’re thinking–“whoa commissioner, you had me until then…  but it sounds a little over the top to me.”  You want evidence.

Okay, let’s start with the various definitions of social justice that seek a form of egalitarianism, i.e. equal, outcomes for all.

Next, we have Mr. Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.  Transform into what?

Have you ever seen the Common Core Transformative Matrix?  Of course, you should be asking the question… transform our students from what into what? Well, it looks somewhat like a four leaf clover. The topmost leaf has the destination.

Want to know what it says? I’ll give you some hints. It doesn’t say “God”. It doesn’t say “The Constitution.” It doesn’t say, “America.”

It says “Global Citizen.”

So what’s a Global Citizen? It is a euphemism for ‘godless government-state citizen’ that places the collective above liberty, above free-enterprise, and above God.  It targets vulnerable children who do not yet subscribe to the principles of individual liberty and unalienable God-given rights.

Don’t laugh. It’s happening as we speak. I know as a fact that an exercise called the “Privilege Walk” is being taught throughout our colleges, and within local public schools. Students are lined-up side by side and asked a series of 25 race-baiting and subtle but anti-Judeo/Christian questions that go something like this:

If you are a white male, take one step forward.

If schools are closed during holidays that align with your religion, step forward.

If you are a minority, take a step backward.

If your parents do not have a college degree, take a step backward.

In the rotting carcass of failed progressive-left federal education doctrine, class envy, anti-white bias, and anti-achievement exercises are presented as a means of promoting Social Justice. In reality, the Privilege walk is little more than a classic anti-white male, anti-capitalist exercise, designed to evoke negative emotions against those who have enjoyed individual success. As Obama said, “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.”  If you own a successful business, you should bend the knee and pay homage to the collective and your government.

It is classic Marxist class warfare… subtle but effective.

Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, perfectly indicts this mentality: “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.  Those that deny individual rights cannot claim to be defender of minorities.”  Yet, that is exactly what the Social justice movement does.  It strips individuals of self-identity and treats them as members of a victim-class. This is called “Identity Politics.”

If you’re lucky enough to belong to a group that is in political vogue with politicians, you may reap government benefits, or even a college admission.

If you belong to the wrong group, which usually consists of either Caucasian males, or business owners, you’re in trouble. Supporters of free-market capitalism are “unsustainable.”

So go ahead… take the Privilege Walk, and feel guilty.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Government Spending Cuts: A Triumph Of FICTION Over FACT

As we listen to our government officials at all levels, we hear many talking about spending cuts.  But, are they really cuts?

For example, in Maryland, if I add-up all of the so-called spending cuts made during the past 7 years, taxes should have decreased by $3 Billion, and individual tax bills should have decreased more than a thousand dollars a year per taxpayer.

Of course, that is not what has happened.  Taxes increased:  Income taxes, property taxes, flush taxes, rain taxes, fuel taxes, toll taxes, sales taxes, vehicle taxes, food and beverage taxes, bottle taxes, bag taxes, title taxes, death taxes, healthcare taxes.  You name it.

This raises an interesting question.  If government is making all of these “Spending Cuts”, why is government continuing to grow? And why are taxes continuing to increase?

The answer will anger you.  The average salt-of-the-earth common-sense citizen knows what a “CUT” is.    If this year I spend $100, but next year I spend only $99, it’s a “CUT”.

So what’s happening?

Government deliberately uses illegitimate definitions of a “CUT,” but depends on you to subconsciously apply a correct definition of a “CUT”.

Here’s how:

The first is something I refer to as the fallacy of buying bananas versus oranges.  If government decides to buy fewer bananas, but more oranges, it issues a press release saying it has cut spending on bananas, while failing to mention it is now spending more on oranges. Of course, in this so-called cut, net spending usually goes up.

The second definition is one I refer to as the fallacy of a reduced wish list.  Government creates its own wish list to grow its budget $10M next year.   When it only get $6M of the planned increase, they announce they’ve cut spending $4 million.  Again, this so-called cut translates into more spending and expansion of government.

So what is a real cut?  A real cut must meet one of the following three criteria:

1)      Next year’s total spending must be less than this year’s total spending.  If it’s lower, it’s a cut; or

2)    Next year’s total funding plan must be fewer total dollars than this year’s total funding plan. If it is, it’s a cut; or

3)    If next year’s planned spending per person is less than this year’s planned spending per person, it might be a cut.  The key word is “might” because you have to pay close attention to the details. If government reduces the amount of spending funded by each individual taxpayer, it may reasonably be considered a cut in spending-per-taxpayer.  This could happen when the population of a jurisdiction is increasing, but expenses are fixed.    On the other hand, if government reduces benefits for each recipient of a social program by 1%, but addicts 50% more people to the same social service, it’s not a cut.  It is an expansion of government.

So there you have it.  Three definition of a real cut in spending.    Everything else is fiction.

Understanding the games played by government officials will help citizens decode “government budget speak” and determine whether so-called cuts are fiction or fact.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Multiculturalism: A More Critical Look

Photo credit: AsianMedia (Creative Commons)

I raised two children through high school and college, and I’ve found that a disturbing anti-American bias is apparent in their multicultural studies.

America’s history is presented as a series of racist, ethnocentric, and colonialist abuses. Perhaps a partial undercurrent of truth exists for some of these criticisms. However, every major civilization on earth has been guilty of the same charges at one time or another. To America’s credit, we evolved and are arguably the most tolerant nation on the planet.

Recently, a friend of mine who is a professor at a Maryland university confided that white males have a rocky trek at her school.  It seems whites have now become the target of choice for endless attacks and derogatory comments by university intelligentsia. All of this appears to be a byproduct of multiculturalism run amuck.

Multiculturalism can be a good thing, especially when used to teach tolerance for individuals who are different than us. However, it is no different than medicine or chocolate … too much of it taken indiscriminately can make you sick. There is a fine line between tolerance and endorsement. What happens when we endorse cultures that do not share our beliefs relating to human rights, respect for law, and the pursuit of happiness for all people?

Ironically, multiculturalism embraces museumized versions of cultures that are incompatible with America’s Constitution.  An example includes fundamentalist Islam, wherein there is no distinction between church and state.  The Koran prescribes Islam; but it also prescribes a body politic, known as Sharia law, wherein women, Christians, Jews, and minorities are denied rights that are taken for granted in America.  My point is this: before embracing any culture, it would be wise to know exactly what we are embracing in the name of multiculturalism.

How do we reconcile Dhimmitude, a form of apartheid, that commands treatment of Christians and Jews as second-class citizens, under condition they subjugate to Sharia law? Women are required to wear veils. Is oppressing women acceptable?

An editor of a liberal northeast newspaper was dismissive, stating, “we won’t accept the most extreme versions of Islamism. That won’t happen.”  It is happening.  Under the guise of multiculturalism, Sharia tribunal courts hostile to women’s rights have already gained a foothold in Canada’s Provinces. Should America embrace Sharia courts?

Illegal immigration is another area of concern. Multiculturalism overtly discourages today’s immigrants from assimilating. The ACLU and other pro-multiculturalism organizations appear to aid and abet illegal immigrants who have no interest in assimilating.  Now, American college graduates living in places like Grand Island, Nebraska, or Greeley, Colorado have difficulty obtaining employment unless they speak Spanish.

A few years ago, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Marsha Garst, Virginia commonwealth’s attorney in rural Rockingham County, described the crime and gang violence perpetrated by illegal aliens in her rural Virginia community. Garst urged lawmakers to address the illegal-alien gang problem “before our way of life is lost forever.” She went on to detail the involvement of gangs like the Salvadoran MS-13 and the Surenos 13, a gang comprised of citizens of Mexico, in drug trafficking, murder, kidnapping, and robbery.

America is under de-facto attack from those who do not embrace our values, and would destroy America’s way of life if empowered.

Mahatma Ghandi once said, “Non cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good.” Has multiculturalism become the battle cry of the complacent and self loathing who refuse to recognize the current geopolitical and geo-cultural threats to America’s heritage? Should we endorse those who threaten our national security, break our laws, and show contempt for America’s constitution, culture, and way of life?

Clearly, multiculturalism has its virtues; but it also has limitations. A lack of unified values threatens the cohesion of our society. The secular nature of multiculturalism is perceived as hypocritical by many Americans. Why does multiculturalism embrace the value of other cultures while simultaneously denigrating the accomplishments and values of America’s great Judeo-Christian heritage?  And, why do multiculturalists appear to embrace the value systems and agendas of various fringe special interest groups, while simultaneously seeking to expunge Judeo-Christian values from our culture?

Multiculturalism rarely focuses on the goodness and benevolence of America and rejects assimilation as a racist concept. Yet, multiculturalism ignores the fact that immigrants leave their birth nations and come to America for a reason. They can retain their rich ethnicity, while sharing America’s culture. They want to be Americans.

Perhaps a better solution is to strive for a single, unified American culture that is simply multi-ethnic.

Ultimately, indiscriminate multiculturalism may prove to be the Trojan horse that destroys a free America. Hostile cultures, if empowered, may dismantle the hard-won rights enjoyed by women and minorities; freedom of religion; freedom from religion; and freedom from social disorder, crime, and tyranny.

It is a fact that America’s great Christian-Judeo culture laid the bedrock for the most open and diverse society in the world.  Ironically, multiculturalism taken to extremes may kill the proverbial Judeo-Christian goose that laid the golden egg.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Photo credit: AsianMedia (Creative Commons)