Freedom Index
Leadership threats to our Constitution
Political EPDs
By Stephen L. Wilmeth
One of the
reasons Angus cattle have become so important to the American cattle industry
isn’t just their sweet dispositions and good looks.
Their
success has advanced the business by the statistical models that are vital in
predicting expected progeny differences or EPDs. With these models, expected
traits of future offspring can be evaluated and selected. If low birth weights
are desired to ease losses resulting from unassisted births, bulls carrying
those traits can be selected. If feed conversions that impact the ability to
endure droughts are important for genetic emphasis, that parental stock can be
selected. Carcass characteristics, maintenance energy requirements and desired
maternal instincts are part of the expanding selection process for herd
management. It is an amazing roadmap of opportunities to create herds that fit
ranch conditions.
If only we
could predict the tendencies of elected leaders.
If we were content to select
candidates whose greatest achievement is to feed out of the golden troughs, our
model would highlight that pack of road hounds. If we wanted to predict fiscal
constraint, we could select for that trait. Most importantly, we could gauge
the political tendencies for adherence to our Constitution.
Implicit in that selection would
reveal what John Adams referred to as “moral and religious people”.
“We have no government armed with power
capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion,” Adams wrote. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral
and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”.
Can truer words ring today, and …
can there be a more central factor in American decay?
The Freedom Index
Actually, we don’t have to wait for
a bovine association to come up with a model to select for political EPDs. A
reference exists.
The Freedom Project scores every
congressman on demonstration of adherence to constitutional principles. Among
the markers are matters affecting limited government, national sovereignty, and
the avoidance of foreign entanglements.
Scores from zero to 100 are given with zero being
applied to those elected officials who must swear allegiance to something other
than our Constitution. Their records reflect pure constitutional degradation.
Perfect scores of 100 do exist.
They are rare, but those elected leaders must take seriously their sworn oath
of office.
Individual scores are the
centerpiece of the index, but the data in the index takes on new significance
if assessed for standards. For example, what states actually produce the
highest scoring constitutional leadership? Those results are interesting.
As a group, the Wyoming leadership scored highest in the current
Congress for adherence to constitutional standards. Those leaders are Senators
Michael Enzi and John Barrasso and Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis. Their average score
was 77. Lummis scored highest with an index rating of 82.
The state with the lowest average is
Connecticut.
That state leadership scored an abysmal 14. Their senatorial duo of Murphy and
Blumenthal held true with the same average. Their District 4 congressman, James
Himes, contributed the lowest score of 7. Their best performer, Congressman John
Larson, had a 21.
Traditional grading
Listening to discussions of how our
youth are graded, I am not sure if the tried and true grading standards still
exist, but we will use them. The grade of A will be given only on scores of 90
and above. B grades will be 80 to 90. C grades will be given on 70 to 80
results. D’s will be given from 65 up to 70, and all grades below 65 will be
failing, or F’s.
On the basis of constitutionality,
the best national leadership today scores no better than average. Wyoming takes a C home
to its citizenry. So do the next three leading states of Oklahoma (73), and Idaho and Kansas (both 71). Two states earn Ds. They
are Utah and Kentucky.
All other states in the test … fail.
Forty four states fail to make the
grade in strict adherence to constitutional principles and trust. Forty four
state leadership contingents swear oaths to uphold the Constitution, but fail
miserably in proof of voting support for limited government, national
sovereignty, and avoidance of foreign entanglements.
Is there little wonder we are in
such dire straits?
The names of the worst elected offenders
in Congress must be announced and publicized. They are members who scored zero
in all matters of constitutionality. They are Ami Bera (Ca), Julia Brownley
(Ca), Raul Ruiz (Ca), Scott Peters (Ca), Steven Horsford (Nv), Ann Kuster (NH),
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM), Grace Meng (NY), Tammy Duckworth (Ill), Bradley Schneider
(Ill), Pete
Gallego (Tx), Elizabeth Warren (Mass), Mo Cowan (Mass), Timothy Kaine (Va), and
Denny Heck (Wa).
It is your responsibility to label
them for what they are.
The worst five states of combined average
leadership are New Mexico
(21), Massachusetts
(18), Rhode Island
and Hawaii
(17), and, of course, Connecticut
(14).
Since I am a New Mexican, my
state’s performance is of particular concern and shame. If the state’s lone
republican is pulled, Steve Pearce, the state’s average would drop to 12 and
place it dead last in national leadership capable of comprehending and defending
the Constitution. The Pearce record, though, is not stellar. His score of 55 still assigns him to
mandatory study hall along with the other 368 failing national leaders.
Constitution be damned, the state’s
senators, Heinrich and Udall, are competing for hall of fame environmental
inductions with 12 and 21 scores, respectively. Ben Ray Lujan splits the
senatorial attempts at zero with his own 15, and, of course, Lujan Grisham dishonors
the state with her zero.
Pathetic, and … no wonder the state
depends on 36% of its annual budget of some $5.6 Billion to come faithfully
from the printing presses of Uncle Sam.
The Originalists
Standing in a wilderness of original
standards is a handful of leaders. Only eight states can boast of these stellar
constitutionalists. Those states are California,
Florida, Oklahoma, Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, and Michigan.
Aside from the few national names,
most are not well known. What we need to do, though, is to learn who they are
and promote their courage and principles. They are the A students.
Their names are Tom McClintock
(Ca), Ted Yoho (Fl), Ron DeSantis (Fl), Jim Bridenstine (Ok), Paul Broun (Ga),
Rand Paul (Ky), Thomas Massie (Ky), Ted Cruz (Tx), Steve Stockman (Tx), Mike
Lee (Ut), and Justin Amash (Mi).
Bridenstine, Massie, and Stockman
are the current elites of constitutionality. They had perfect scores of 100.
The others scored 90 or above to make the cut.
There is nothing wrong with B
students and many C students have grown up to create huge successes, but our
nation is in trouble. We can no longer elect Presidents from leaders in
training or leaders who demonstrate propensities to be agenda incendiaries.
We must select only the best, and …
the A grade constitutionalists must be driving the selection process.
Stephen
L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New
Mexico. “The sound bite genteel of Boehner, Reid,
McConnell, Pelosi, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, Graham, Menendez, Rangel,
Grassley, and Issa fail in individual scoring, average 38, and … we wonder why
we are in trouble.”
No comments:
Post a Comment