by Jacob F. roecker
Posted by jacobroecker on 29 November 2009 under Homeless | 
Be the First to Comment
Posted by jacobroecker on 26 November 2009 under Family | Be the First to Comment
Mom’s visiting this week and she’s an early riser. So am I. We found ourselves having a few quiet moments this m
orning looking at old family photos. My folks spent a lot of time scanning photos and other memorabilia into a large family database. One item in the database came up today and we took a look and read it. It was our Christmas memories from 1984.
From 1984-1985 Hannah Barbara produced a delightful show known as the “GOBOTS.” It was essentially a knock off of Transformers. It didn’t matter whether it was the “generic” version of something else to us, we liked it. Growing up in a home with three boys leads to enjoying robots, violence, and limited plot development. GOBOTS had all of these.
We had asked for some of the character’s toys for Christmas, and mom and dad were able to indulge their children. You’ll notice reading the image that David and I each had broken GOBOTS as part of our Christmas memories. I know full well what happened, but this morning turned to mom and asked: “Mom, why did you get us broken GOBOTS?”
She looked at me and laughed.
Today our Thanksgiving is full of memories from our Turkey Trot, great food, good conversation, wonderful people, and the occasional jab that “My parents were so mean growing up they brought us “broken GOBOTS.” Which is equally met with mom’s classic response: “We got you what you deserved” exchanged with the classic smile only my mother is capable of portraying.
So far so good. We’re watching the Disney Classic: “That Darn Cat” and enjoying stretching our full stomachs as we lie in various positions around the living room, and the rest of the house. Thank you to the great folks who are away from familiy this year. We’ve kept you in our prayers and hope you can feel them wherever you are.
Posted by jacobroecker on under Homeless | Be the First to Comment
Posted by jacobroecker on 25 November 2009 under Homeless | Be the First to Comment
Posted by jacobroecker on 21 November 2009 under Homeless | Be the First to Comment
Posted by jacobroecker on 20 November 2009 under Homeless | Be the First to Comment
Posted by jacobroecker on 19 November 2009 under Political | Read the First Comment
The big debate in 1775 was whether or not our country had moral enough people to govern themselves.
This same debate needs to occur now. We cannot demand our liberty unless (as a people) we are ready to govern ourselves again. Like it or not, it wasn’t the GOP that let McCain get the nomination–people voted for him! We have to educate our neighbors. Get them started on that pathway to discovering their liberty and they will be champions along side us in all of this. Inhofe’s response is typical politician. They assume that the citizenry is apathetic, and as long as the citizenry is apathetic they can do whatever they want.
Like it or not Obama does represent a portion of the American voting population. What if the socialists in our nation were educated about the blessings and responsibility of liberty? I have said elsewhere _____________________
Obama was right on the campaign trail when he said that Americans are not as divided as our politics suggest. We just need to start our conversations with the thing that does bind us, our Constitution. Had the “left” leaning folks who were making all these anti-war protests on the basis of the fact that “it’s morally wrong” bothered to say: “You can’t deploy soldiers outside of the borders of the US without a declaration of war or letter of marquee” everyone on the “right” would have been forced to agree with them.
How many lives would be saved if we declared war and gave our generals actual goals to accomplish? It’s what our Soldiers deserve. The constitution is what they’re fighting for, an in order to make their sacrifice worth something we have to make it relevant. Tell all your friends on the “left” that you agree with them about the war, and that instead of fighting about it for years you would have supported them if they had changed their rhetoric.
Obama never bothered to explain on the campaign trail how we’re not divided. He hasn’t given a credible speech on how we’re united that I know of to date, because he focuses on polarizing policies instead of beginning with our singular binding document. If he hadn’t believed that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed (and should therefore be ignored) he might actually be able to bring our nation together. If he based his persuasion on the constitution instead of his “charm,” he’d probably have more charm, and more people supporting him.
_______________________________
A technique I use to educate others is to tell them that they “own” all of their rights, and then gift to the government certain specific powers to maintain their liberty and a free society. That simple fact alone leads them down the path to discovering liberty. Our differences become minor when they begin realizing that they really are in charge. Once someone realizes that they are empowered, they are generally energized. The parties have done a LOT to treat us as powerless (buying votes, and believing the “GOP put McCain against Obama”)
For those who believe the problem is “too big to solve” I educate them on the Audit the Fed Bill, and how common sense and phone calls have won over a majority of congressman. Then I point them to things like the fair tax as a bi-partisan, strategic, well researched, plan to return power back to the people.
Once they learn they don’t have to solve all the problems, they’re happier. Once they learn they have a range of problems they can choose to dedicate their talents to (and are introduced to some great people to work with) they’re usually more than willing to assist. Working with others builds conversations that educate and further help them on their path to discovering liberty.
This leads me to something else that’s been bugging me. The “Libertarian Elitism” that exists in the liberty movement is a total downer. It’s like trying to start using Ubuntu, saying something out of ignorance like “why isn’t linux like windows?” and then watching your inbox explode with hate-mail about how stupid that question is because the “die-hard” linux guys are offended by such a question.
Look, liberty has been so trounced upon that we’ve nearly entirely forgotten the definition of the word. No one in my generation has ever been able to “feel” freedom! Those who stand on higher philosophical ground have a responsibility to assist others in climbing the same path. That’s not a socialist statement, or an anti-elitist one. That’s a reality. The problem I see is that for so many years the liberty folks were mocked when they were trying to help others, became embittered, and stopped. Now there is a huge swath of people who want to climb that mountain, and too many of those who should help are mocking those beginning the journey.
To those knuckleheads I have a warning: It’s not about YOU! Drop your ego and get to work helping! It’s about my kids and your kids being able to “feel” freedom in their lifetime. Quit treating me like an idiot because I bought the GOP line about “don’t give your vote to a 3rd party candidate crap.” Lots of other people have to, and they’re awake. It’s not about “you” or “me” because the problems can’t be entirely solved in our generation. We can solve them by the time we pass this torch to our children. That’s what we need to focus on.
There’s not as much division on the “right” as MSNBC says their is (that’s because they put McCain on the right–which he’s not), but I’m tired of reading at the Daily Paul comments about how dumb “9-12ers” are, or tea party folks. I hope that the less critical members of the liberty movement start to become the most vocal, because right now that’s not the case. The critical ones are the most vocal, and it’s a discouragement to restoring our nation.
Yes, ideologically you’re right, but I’m not going to talk to you when I see you treat others as “stupid” for not having figured it out the same day you did.
People would like to discredit RJ for not being as smooth a politician as someone else. He’s done more as a politician than being smooth. In the many conversations I have had with him he seems to be able to chart the idealogical waters with veteran precision. He not only sees the goal of liberty, but has methodically and carefully thought through the steps to get there. He, nor any of his fans/staff, have ever been condescending towards anyone at any stage of “liberty education.”
He takes the time to explain things, and win support through patience, one person at a time. That is something remarkably refreshing to see in politics, and I know it’s not just happening here. Which means RJ wont be alone if we can get him to D.C..
I can’t donate to RJ’s campaign because $$ is tight around the house, but I can donate my time. I can win over the votes without purchasing them, because the ideas of liberty are contagious. Spreading them will lead to victory here, and across our great nation.
My children deserve to “feel” freedom.
Posted by jacobroecker on 15 November 2009 under Political | Read the First Comment
I’m still registered to vote in CT, and so I called my health care supporting representative this week and have a hint about how to have a similar conversation in your circles of influence. I talked with his staff members about heath care, but began the conversation with the Constitution.
I explained that as a citizen the Constitution was the only document I had that explained my relationship with the government. I didn’t have lawyers or judges etc., just the Constitution.
I said, “I’ve got a copy with me now, and I’d like you to walk me through where the congressman gets his permission from me to regulate healthcare.”
He wasn’t prepared for this sort of a question and tried to remind me that the issue was important by talking about folks who are denied care because of previous conditions. I agreed with him that this was a problem, but reminded him of my question.
I explained that the burden of proof is on our government officials. If they think they can do this, then they owe us an explanation as to where they got that authority. It’s not a hard argument. It’s quite legitimate, and they owe it to us on every issue they vote on.
He mentioned the commerce clause. I turned to Article 1 Section 8 and read the commerce clause for him. Then I explained that the federalist papers talk about regulate meaning “to make regular.” I said that because the document was written back then we have to use their understanding of the words they chose, not our modern definition.
What was amazing in this conversation was how the staffer actually started thinking things through. This wasn’t a conversation about how socialist the agenda is, or how wrong it is, this was a very polite conversation, that he and the other staff were having to discuss. They actually started thinking about the constitution in relation to their jobs!!! (That’s how you “win people over”).
I told the staffer that his argument FOR doing this is simple. Identify which irregularity exists… The commerce clause is designed to address irregularities… So, which irregularities are the problem, and how does this legislation address those irregularities? I said that if the congressman can do this, even if I disagree with his vote, I will respect him in properly representing his constituents.
“If he can’t present me with this argument,” I said, “then he needs to vote ‘no’ until he can present his case.” The staffer understood, and agreed. Remember this guy is championing SCHIP on his website about how good it is etc., but the staff that supported him in getting the votes for that legislation were stumped by what I was asking. Today I will call back again and ask if he’s found the answer. If not, I will suggest that in good conscience to his oath as a congressman, he must vote “no.”
During the conversation he talked about how folks couldn’t get coverage, and I explained that the commerce clause only works for irregularities of commerce between the states. Since healthcare is regulated by each state, and it doesn’t cross state lines, the federal government shouldn’t regulate in this arena. I told him it wasn’t because I didn’t want the problem solved, but I’ve already got a level of government working for me on that issue. I can’t hold my state responsible for something they’re supposed to fix, if the federal government steps in and “takes charge.” This will mix roles and responsibilities and create havoc for the government, and for citizens.
This method allowed for a very polite conversation. I don’t even think the staffer understood how vehemently opposed to this bill I am, but he didn’t need to understand that. I walked him through logically thinking about the constitutionality of this vote.
Obama was right on the campaign trail when he said that Americans are not as divided as our politics suggest. We just need to start our conversations with the thing that does bind us, our Constitution. Had the “left” leaning folks who were making all these anti-war protests on the basis of the fact that “it’s morally wrong” bothered to say: “You can’t deploy soldiers outside of the borders of the US without a declaration of war or letter of marquee” everyone on the “right” would have been forced to agree with them.
How many lives would be saved if we declared war and gave our generals actual goals to accomplish? It’s what our Soldiers deserve. The constitution is what they’re fighting for, an in order to make their sacrifice worth something we have to make it relevant. Tell all your friends on the “left” that you agree with them about the war, and that instead of fighting about it for years you would have supported them if they had changed their rhetoric.
Obama never bothered to explain on the campaign trail how we’re not divided. He hasn’t given a credible speech on how we’re united that I know of to date, because he focusses on polarizing policies instead of beginning with our singular binding document. If he hadn’t believed that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed (and should therefore be ignored) he might actually be able to bring our nation together. If he based his persuasion on the constitution instead of his “charm,” he’d probably have more charm, and more people supporting him.
Well, I hope this helps. Please clean up my grammar and re-post as you see fit. I believe that this should be our discussion strategy for everything our representatives do. Let me say that again in bold:
I believe this should be our discussion strategy for everything our representatives do.
It works.
-Jacob Roecker
Founder 912Candidates.org
Posted by jacobroecker on 14 November 2009 under Homeless | Be the First to Comment
Posted by jacobroecker on 11 November 2009 under Homeless | Be the First to Comment
Share this Button
