Sunday, July 14, 2013

Leadership threats to our Constitution



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: