Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘conservative’

Balance the Budget, Change the Constitution?

Posted by americana83 on November 20, 2012

Alec has joined with others to call for an Article V Convention, and promises a way to a safe and limited convention which only addresses the issue of a balanced budget amendment. Before considering the argument, it would be best to look at the Constitution itself to see what legal limitations are placed on such a convention:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The first section of article V addresses the familiar method of constitutional amendment, which has been done many times since the founding. Article V has really only actually been done once before, and then under the auspices of the previous constitution: the Articles of Confederation, which shows us how a convention goes.

Simply speaking, according to article V, 2/3 of the states apply to the congress, which then proceeds to call for a convention to propose amendments. After this, they must be approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states, OR by conventions, depending on which method is proposed by the Congress.

A straight forward reading of Article V shows that the only limitation placed upon such a convention, is that the international slave trade could not be abolished prior to 1808 and the states cannot be deprived of equal representation in the senate without their consent. That is it. Any promises of any other imposable limitations do not pass constitutional muster. Article V provides an escape hatch up to and including a complete rewrite of the Constitution. Since the founders were conducting a great experiment, there had to be a way to completely revise it if it proved unworkable or had some great defect. Article V provides the means for a peaceful political revolution. However, history has shown us now that the Constitution had no fatal flaws, and the need for “fundamental change” is greatly exaggerated. In fact, it is a lack of adherence to the existing Constitution which leads to a seriously out of control spending spree and an ever expanding and more intrusive government. This is NOT an article V scenario. This is an issue that can only provide the illusion of being addressed by a “balanced budget amendment, seeing as the government flouts the existing amendments regularly. Conservatives are not living in reality if they believe that they can prevent or negate what would surely be a considerable progressive influence in any convention. New York, the beltway, California and other large progressive centers would not doubt demand and receive due influence at any such convention, as well as progressives at large, such as the successors of ACORN and the various progressive think tanks such as the Tides Foundation, Center for the American Way, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Also, a Constitutional convention would provide a unique opportunity for team Obama to legally implement the fullness of his promise to “fundamentally transform” this country.

ALEC, the usually Conservative leaning American Legislative Exchange Council is actively promoting the idea of an Article V Constitutional convention as a safe and limited method to push through a balanced budget amendment and save the country. Throughout their work on the matter, they make constant reference to support for the balanced budget amendment in their push to compel people to embrace the idea of an Article V Convention. They then quote the heritage foundation, who managed somewhere in article V of the US constitution to find a limiting mechanism and appealing to “authorties” rather than to the actual text of the amendment:

“Worries [regarding a run-away convention] are based upon a misperception of the nature of an Article V convention and of the safeguards built into the amendment process. A wide variety of authorities, including a special study committee of the American Bar Association, point out that a convention legally can be limited to a particular subject. These limitations can be enforced by Congress or by the courts. A convention also would be constrained by a range of political factors, including the election of its delegates.
They bill the convention as the ulimate exercize of state’s rights, yet proceed to state:
Congress must designate whether state legislatures or state ratifying conventions are to ratify the amendment. This gives Congress a tool to stop, in effect, any amendments that exceed the convention’s charge.
And then despite vehement protest against labeling this movement for a convention a constitutional convention, they cite this (and ironically right after saying congress has a tool to stop amendments from the convention!):
the framers of the Constitution wisely intended the convention method to be a vital counterweight to the powers of Congress to block amendments. As the campaign for direct elections to the U.S. Senate demonstrated, the threat of a constitutional convention sometimes is necessary to force consideration of amendments that challenge the self-interest of Capitol Hill lawmakers.
In effect conceding it is a constitutional convention, while still denying it, and saying it is the highest states rights while saying congress can block it… all these quotes come from the PDF file Addendum: Other Questions (regarding the Article V Constitutional Convention).
The main PDF from ALEC, “Article V Handbook” goes through great pains to ease the concerns about an Article V Convention. It simply rejects as “inaccurate” the body of work explaining the full scope of power afforded to a Article V Convention, before concluding that, “there have been a few solid studies of the process, and the recommendations in this Handbook are based on their research and conclusions” Of course, their handbook is the result of the only good studies, and does not have an agenda, as those shady anti-convention people do. This is dishonest and unfair, especially since they ignore that there is nothing in the text that limits the topic of the convention and conceding in the Addendum that a convention can set its own rules. Either this Convention has the power to fundamentally change the constitution or it is severely limited. To ALEC, it is both things simultaneously which is impossible. In summary to the first portion ALEC says to note:
• The principal reason for the state application and convention process is to enable the states to check an oppressive or runaway Congress—although the Constitution does not actually limit the process to that purpose.
• The Framers explicitly designed the process to enable the states to substantially bypass Congress.

Given that congress is still involved in the convention process, it seems incorrect to assert the purpose was to thwart a “runaway congress,” but rather to check the advances of a runaway executive. Does it make sense to involve the abusive party in the process? Remember, the founders had much more concern regarding the executive, as opposed to the legislature. The second bullet point is just not true. The petition goes to congress for congress to call the convention, and the ratification process is chosen by congress. Does that really sound like “substantially bypassing” congress? ALEC then takes comfort in the idea that the Supreme Court will enforce the rights of state legislatures, and again asserts the myth of substantial bypass of congress. No one is entitled to their own facts, or to amend the words of Article V to say something that they absolutely do not say. They then go on to specify how states can apply to Congress (the one they claim the states are bypassing!) for a convention, designating open and limited petitions. Unfortunately for ALEC, there is no such distinction in Article V, which only allows for opening up a “Convention for proposing Amendments.”

They then invent a legal fiction which DOES NOT exist in article V, that the applications must be on the same topic. They repeat this multiple times, though again, a straight forward reading of Article V does not in any way place this limitation on the Amendments Convention. On page 14 of the Article V Factbook, this legal fiction is explicitly stated as fact:

The Constitution assigns Congress a routine duty it must perform. It is important to note, however, that congressional receipt of 34 applications is not sufficient; those applications must relate to the same subject matter.
It merely says on the application of two-thirds of the states. It doesn’t matter if the calls are for a balanced budget amendment or calls to abolish the right to bear arms or put Carbon taxes into the Constitution Once two-thirds of the states have sent petitions in, it is time for congress to act.
They repeat it again on the same page: The power to “call” an interstate convention authorizes Congress only to count and categorize the applications by subject matter, announce on what subjects the two-thirds threshold has been reached, and set the time and place of the convention.
They also assert another legal fiction after stating some evident truths:
Accordingly, a convention for proposing amendments has no authority to violate Article V or any other part of the Constitution. According to the rules in Article V, the convention may not propose a change in the rule that each state has “equal Suffrage in the Senate,”12 nor may it alter the ratification procedure.

There is nothing in Article V that prevents an amendment from adjusting the ratification process. They then discuss precedent in delegate selection, but the ultimate truth is that each state will do what it wants. This presents some difficulties for the professed purpose.

Alone, progressive radicals do not have the numbers to call for their own convention, however, through California’s radical legislature and some other states, they could easily pose a strong influence on any convention. ALEC talks as if the convention will take place in a conservative vacuum where Alinsky radicals are not allowed and a strict-constructionist anti-communist mindset are not allowed. Liberals have plenty of ideas to “balance the budget,” even if it is only for the purpose of making grow even more.

They then go on to attack those who oppose the Article V convention’s use. I would agree in a sense, though not how they intend. There really can’t be a runaway convention. Because barring the topics of equal representation in the senate and the now passed deadline regarding importation of slaves, the Convention can propose as many and as varied of amendments as it wishes. It can even end run hostile legislatures in the states if Congress opts for “conventions” for the purpose of ratification.

Many of their claims of safety stem from the myth of a Convention limited by topic, and ironically also hinge on a Supreme Court STRIKING DOWN a federal Constitutional Amendment (or amendments!) ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Article V is for proposing changes to the Constitution. We do not need fundamental change. The experiment which the Founders hedged all on has been a success, and would still be so today if we held our government accountable to following it. Congress has made laws violating their limits (EG light bulb bans, healthcare mandates). Congress and the president have both set up government bodies that go beyond the jurisdiction of federal powers (Department of Education, TSA, HUD, EPA, etc though such bodies MIGHT find a home at the state level depending on the state’s constitution and laws). Congress and the president have set up huge unconstitutional wealth redistribution programs for the purpose of buying votes and expanding federal power under the guise of “fairness” or “charity” Congress would ignore any Balanced Budget Amendment with teeth, and would only embrace one which had an escape hatch that could let them continue to spend how ever they want, just like this one. See my article addressing it specifically here.

In short, if we want to fix this problem, we can only solve it by fixing who we send to Washington. We do not need to edit our constitution via convention. We do not need a balanced budget amendment. We DO need a drastically REDUCED federal budget that will allow us to pay down the debt and then reduce taxes across the board.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Conservative look at the Heritage Plan “Saving the American Dream”

Posted by americana83 on August 16, 2012

Billed as a plan to “fix the debt, cut spending and restore prosperity, The heritage plan has some undeniably good elements. Unfortunately it does some things that seriously undermine its good points, which center around healthcare, taxes, the role of government and medicare. Ultimately, this is directed not at the Heritage foundation, but at their willingness to let an open advocate of progressive globalism draft a plan that uses Heritage’s good name and conservative reputation to further a plan that contains indisputably socialist elements and takes a wrong approach to what government must do on our behalf.

Healthcare.

The plan does nothing to address the core problem facing healthcare in this country, and that is government subsidy and control. The plan accepts as gospel the indisputable fact that the Government can and must pay for healthcare. Not only that, but it accepts that the “rich” must continue to support it through their taxes, while receiving reduced ‘benefits’ or even none at all while those who contribute nothing will get it for free. In short it perpetuates socialism.

Taxes.

The plan actually fails in part because it pegs a FLOOR to government taxing, at a rate pegged by the Peter G Peterson foundation as being the highest rate people can comfortably tolerate (about 18.5% of GDP), and savings are to be poured into the health programs being run by the government, which this plan does absolutely nothing to phase out. It also carves out generous deductions (subsidies) for college. It should be noted that, according to a chart one on page four of the Heritage plan PDF, that 18.5 percent is only about a percentage point lower than the percent through the last term of G.W. Bush.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1960_2008USp_13s1li011mcn_F0f

Role of Government.

It was President Obama who infamously said that you have to “spread the wealth around” and his wife that said, “Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

The Heritage plan would do just that. On page 10 we read:

Because the new Social Security is a real insurance system, designed to protect seniors from poverty, retirees with high incomes from sources other than Social Security will receive a smaller check, and very affluent seniors will receive no check.

First, it is not real insurance, we have no choice but to pay into it. And while the new rolled all into one tax plan obfuscates that, the fact is that taxpayers will be paying into a system that will reward those who have not paid into it and do nothing for those that have been forced to pay into it. This is not a conservative plan, this is marxist. On page 14, it breaks it down:

Under the Heritage plan, only about 9 percent of seniors would see their checks reduced and only just over 3.5 percent of seniors would receive no check.

They cite that taxes already dilute everyone’s Social Security checks, but this makes it a strict class-bias with the top 12.5% who have had the most money extorted out of them seeing nothing. Well, that is social justice in action.

But it gets better. Under this “conservative plan,” a new automatic opt-in is created:

Beginning in 2014, a new savings plan will be introduced over two years. Under this plan, 6 percent of each worker’s income is placed in a retirement savings plan that the worker owns and controls unless he or she explicitly declines to have such an account. (This approach is known as automatic enrollment.)

On page 15, it is claimed that the above elimination of benefits for the rich will, “drive the costs of Social Security below the level of taxes collected, those savings will go into the workers’ accounts.” There it is, the benefits paid for by “the rich” will be transferred to the automatically opted in “super 401(k)” accounts created by the Heritage plan. It sounds great, and since only 12.5% will be adversely affected, it will be perfectly fine. That’s democracy in action, right? Tell that to the people who have seen thousands of dollars of their hard earned income consumed by the Leviathan of government. At less than $15 an hour, I’ve already seen almost 900 dollars (plus the unseen 900 dollars taken directly from my employer by the government for the purpose of paying for this system. So I can imagine the cost to those who make way more than that. Of course, as heritage reminded us in the plan, what we pay now is going to someone else’s benefits, and it’s up to future generations to subsidize my generation. No matter what happens, my generation is going to lose money on this. An ideal plan would include the complete phasing out of Federal “retirement insurance” all together, as at least the losses would be limited in duration instead of extending out into perpetuity.

Medicare

The Heritage plan also tackles Medicare reform. And has this to say:

When the changes are fully phased in, seniors will enroll in the health plans of their choice and receive a defined contribution (known as premium support) toward the cost of their plans, much as Members of Congress and millions of federal employees and retirees do through the FEHBP. (page 18)

The problem is again, what we have is not a plan to wean Americans off mandates, but a new subsidy for the purchase of insurance. We have a government body deciding what is an “adequate level of benefits” and telling us how to save and spend for retirement. Further, richer Americans are again left footing the bill for a plan which takes from them and doesn’t give back. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Is the apparent gist of the Heritage plan’s Medicare and social security reforms. Not to mention government subsidies and supports do little or nothing to decrease the cost of goods and services. Just look at what is happening to the cost of higher education. Government grants of all kinds not to mention state and local government support leaves no incentive for colleges and universities to control costs at all, or to offer degrees that are relevant to the needs of the economy or community. The same can be seen as the government has become a bigger and bigger payer for healthcare (though not yet the single payer, like Obama so badly wants). In short, it will not help the price of healthcare or medical care.

Wealth redistribution and market distortion are not proper roles of government, and are certainly not proper roles to be offered by a conservative organization.

Per our constitution, it is not the role of federal government to offer national retirement insurance, welfare, health insurance, subsidies for the purchase thereof, education, or subsidies for the purchase thereof. By offering so called tax breaks for the purchase of “higher education” or health insurance, the heritage plan does nothing to restore a true free market, which would lower the prices across the board as colleges and health care providers/insurers were no longer guaranteed government money or captive markets. The Heritage plan accepts the Government’s role as nanny. Further, it accepts as gospel the claims that reducing “redundant programs,” other waste and fraud will result in great savings in the political by and by twenty and thirty years down the road. 18.5% of GDP is too much. Almost one out of every 5 dollars in the economy belongs to the Federal government, not even counting state and local taxes?

By accepting 18.5 percent of GDP, we are accepting a government that spends roughly a percentage point below  Bush-Era levels, which is still way too high. The Bush Era saw the expansion of government medicine via Medicare Part D, It saw expanded federal intrusion in schools via no-child left behind and it saw the waging of two wars. We can and must shoot lower. As long as we accept a government that must act as a nanny state and custodian of our healthcare, education and retirement, we can forget about government ever being reduced to a size and intrusiveness (or lack thereof!) that will truly allow America to prosper once again.

Why is the heritage foundation offering up a plan which contains such explicitly socialist elements? The problem lies in large part with who they went to when creating the plan. The Foundation which apparently paid for and which authored this plan is the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, headed by a man of the same name. He and his foundation were also behind the deceptive “Owe No” Campaign, which was directed at the debt as well, and which involved a whole slew of big government socialism.

That Mr. Peterson and his foundation would promote progressivism and wealth redistribution comes as no surprise when you realize that Mr. Peterson is the Chairman Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, a powerful progressive think tank that actively promotes the UN, World Government, the global warming scam, and a whole slew of other progressive programs with the end goal being an invigorated UN serving as the foundation of world government. Most of your high profile RINO republicans will be associated with the CFR.

Believing the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council to be good organizations with many good goals, I would urge you to reach out to the FRC and heritage and let them know you reject Mr. Peterson’s big government socialism, and that you would like them to do so to.

In summary: Lowering the corporate tax rate and flattening the tax code is a great thing, but is ruined by mixing in socialism and doing nothing to reduce or eliminate the role of the Federal government in healthcare, education, charity, and retirement planning, ensuring that costs will continue to skyrocket. Mr. Peterson’s second debt solution plan is a Trojan horse for socialism, just like the last one.

You can read my previous article on Mr. Peterson and the “Owe No” Campaign here:

You can view for yourself the entire plan at savingthedream.org, which is currently linked from heritage.org. It even has nice graphical layouts showing people what freebies they will get depending on what demographic they are in!

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Emperor’s New Gender (a broken fairy tale)

Posted by americana83 on March 5, 2012

A tale Inspired (but not really based on) by the true story.

 

Once upon a time in the progressive kingdom of Yesweecan there was a great king, the greatest progressive leader that had ever governed Yesweecan. With his newly printed money, he was getting ready to mandate a higher living wage when word reached him that the greatest psychological guru in the entire progressive world had come to tour the kingdom of Yesweecan and to meet its leader. King Brother Keeper was delighted, and postponed his plans in order that he might meet this great and enlightened man.

 

The great doctor was ushered into the king’s court. After a series of rowdy parties in celebration of their honored guest, the doctor requested a private meeting with the king. The king readily consented and they retired immediately to the king’s office.

 

“King,” said the great doctor, “I see that your kingdom is truly progressive, but I must confess that there is one thing that would make it even more progressive.”

“What have we not done?” Said the king, going through a brief history of all the great progressive legislation, living wages of 50 dollars an hour, free universal compulsory public education through four years of college, mandatory health insurance, free birth control dispensed from machines on every street corner, the abolition of stock markets, private property, churches, even the private ownership of clothes!

 

“But, my dear king, you are still living with a regressive morality. I can tell from looking at you that you have an unresolved inner identity crises that you refuse to resolve.”

 

“Oh my,” stuttered the king, “I never realized it! Can you help me.”

 

“Why certainly,” said the great Psychologist. “And when I’m done, the kingdom will see that their leader is truly a great woman.”

 

“But,” said the king, but the great Psychologist interrupted,

 

“In time you will see the you inside you that you have suppressed ever since the day your father duped you into dreaming of dragon slaying and other such oppressive middle age artificial misogamist gender reinforcing behaviors. You see, the philosophy behind such antiquated models is that gender is biological. That men are born men and women are born women. For all your great progressive achievements, I cannot believe you failed to keep up with the latest and most progressive psychological models. Imagine the dozens of little boys that stopped playing with dolls when they were surrounded by an artificial reinforcement of male identity with the heroism surrounding your formative years as a knight and dragon slayer. These youth need a role model who will tell them that they do not have to accept the reality they have been given, but can construct their own reality and so expand their self esteem and become whatever they want to be without fear of a disapproving look from anyone!”

“My, you are truly a great psychologist! I have never seen it that way before. I cannot imagine how many young minds have been implanted with a sense of concrete reality because of my ignorant actions!” You must help me!”

 

“My friend, that is why I am here! You must follow everything that I explain to you in order to express yourself truly and let your real self shine through!

 

Over the following weeks, the king wasn’t visible in his kingdom and the good proletarians wondered where their leader was. It was later announced that a new agency  was being set up, the Progressive Bureau of Free Gender Self Expression and Anti-Bigotry. The people marveled at how truly progressive and liberating that sounded, and knew immediately that the king had spend these past weeks consulting with the greatest progressive mind in the world.

 

By the time of the winter solstice holiday, the Great Psychologist appeared before the people.

 

“My dear friends, over the past few weeks we have been preparing a new agency that will bring untold progressive advancement throughout the kingdom. It will allow people the freedom to express who they truly are, no matter what their true self is. For too long we have allowed that regressive antagonist Reality to rule over the people, to demand that they accept his conclusions. The chief purpose of this new agency will be to see that Reality remains forever banished from this kingdom, for no kingdom can be truly progressive until Reality has been dismissed from its borders. For even your great Leader was still under the rigid control of Reality. Thus, to continue the expansion of your kingdom’s progressive status, your old king has decided to begin with his own person. I have succeeded in freeing your King from his bondage to reality.

The people were awed. They had never known that the menace of Reality still haunted their kingdom to such a great extent. Sure, they occasionally had an unruly child, who insisted a toy was “his.” Or some quack that insisted the earth was not some kind of cosmic accident, but such things were usually solved with more education and assignment to the finest mental health institutions in the kingdom. That their king was under the grip of Reality caused the people to collectively shudder.

 

Never fear, good subjects, I have succeeded in driving its icy influence from your wise leader. From this day forward, it will no longer be proper to address your leader as “King” or to call her “he.” All hail the great Queen of Yesweecan.

 

The ex King appeared on the stage. It was clear the People’s Treasury had invested a considerable amount. The people cheered, for the expense was a pittance to be paid in order that Reality might be banished forever from the kingdom. The people cheered as the Queen walked down the Royal catwalk while triangle pink and purple confetti rained down on them and the newly written progressive anthem, “Made this way” was belted out by the People’s Progressive Choir.

 

From the back of the great crowd a hand was raised and a shout of wait rang out. The proletarians ceased their cheering and the anthem died and the Queen froze on the walkway.

 

“But putting a dress on a man mutilating his body and replacing it with plastic doesn’t make him a woma-“ said the lone dissident, a vagabond youth from the kingdom’s flyover country, a barbaric and horrid place where the reach of the administration’s progressive dictates was weakest.

 

The youth’s statement was immediately interrupted by the Great Psychologist, who’s voice boomed out over the crowd. Good citizens, Reality has raised its ugly hurtful voice! Seize him!

 

The people, readily trusting in the most trustworthy and progressive voice ever known, made off after the youth, who had ran off into the wilderness preserve, which was forbidden by Environmental decree 103,0987,001 for any citizen to enter, lest his humanness contaminate it. And so he escaped into the wilderness, which was also a world heritage site. The Queen was relieved, and filed the proper paperwork to inform the United People’s Kingdoms of the violation and allow them to process the proper response.

 

And the great Psychologist, who was appointed to the well paid position of Czar of the Progressive Bureau of Free Gender Self Expression and Anti-Bigotry, made a final address to the people.

 

Good citizens. In light of the shocking and terrible, albeit brief return of the monster Reality to our happy and progressive kingdom, as the Czar of the Progressive Bureau of Free Gender Self Expression and Anti-Bigotry, I must append the following dictates to the Rules of Good Citizenship, page 100,460,666:

 

1. No one is to question another’s gender or sexual expression, unless by that expression they challenge another’s expression.

 

2. Anyone guilty of infringing on another’s personal-reality in a negative or unapproving way will be charged with Hate Crime.

 

3. Where current culture and science conflict with personal-reality, they must be modified to accommodate that personal-reality, unless that personal-reality is Hate Crime.

 

4. Anyone trying to force an objective Reality of any kind will be charged with Hate Crime.

 

5. Anyone charged with Hate Crime will be immediately remanded to the proper mental hygiene clinic for healing. Those found unhealable will be aborted in the most sustainable and humane fashion.

The people nodded in collective agreement. And so the citizens of the People’s Kindom lived happily ever after, that is until Reality, leading the rules of Society and Economics caught up with their progressive kingdom and it collapsed into anarchy and starvation. But even then, some took solace in defining their self-reality, despite the fact that their stomachs rebelled against them. 

 The End?

 (c) 2012

 

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. – 2nd Chr. 7:14 – 1769 Oxford King James Bible ‘Authorized Version

 

 

 

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What to look for in a presidential candidate, or any candidate for any office.

Posted by americana83 on June 10, 2011

I’ve been accused of looking for a “perfect” candidate. However, I am merely looking for someone who will actually move us in the right direction. The “right direction” can roughtly be broken down in to 10 areas, many of which are somewhat interlinked, but still worth noting separately:

Budget reduction: Does a candidate actually specify things which he would work to have cut. “streamlining” or “eliminating waste” sounds really good, but ANY candidate should be doing that, and in light of the massive federal budget, this only ever amounts to a few drops in the bucket, and it almost never gets done.

Redacting Green agenda: Does a candidate seek to curtail carbon emissions? If so, they are uninformed about global warming and are a serious threat to economic and personal liberty.

End Abortion: Often sidelined as a “social issue,” abortion actually should actually be at the center of the fight for constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence cited the unalienable right of Life first, and that is proper, because without life, you can neither exercise liberty or pursue happiness. Abortion was forced on an entire county by an activist Supreme Court in direct violation of the Bill of Rights: No personal shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Congress could remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter and return the issue of abortion to the states. A candidate that encourages that and/or which works to remove federal funds from paying for ANY abortion would be helping to move this issue forward.

Reducing the Size of government: Does a candidate have an agenda that involves cutting the size of government in some concrete way, such as reigning in the EPA, eliminating the federal department of education, eliminating federal entitlement programs (like free cell phones), vetoing any budget that includes any money to enact ObamaCare/signing any legislation that repeals ObamaCare? Any candidate can, and probably will talk about “big government” and how bad it is, but do they back up this talk with a plan for action? No candidate who supports laws banning so-called raw milk or Edison’s light bulb can be said to be concerned about the size of government- unless their concern is that it’s too SMALL!

Educational choice: Is the candidate committed to getting the federal government out of education? Eliminating the federal department of Education, eliminating grants? Education has declined in quality in America as the federal government has taken it over more and more.

Debt reduction and the Federal Reserve: Will the candidate veto any budget that includes debt ceiling increases, or deficit spending? Will he work to pare down the executive branch of the government of which he is head? Will he support a sound money program that seeks to restore proper money, the kind of money we had when America was a creditor and not a debtor nation? The kind of money we had when the dollar became the “world reserve” currency?

Health Care freedom: Is the candidate committed to protecting the rights of doctors to own hospitals (as ObamaCare bans)? Is he committed to pulling the government out of healthcare? Will he promote a plan that opts this and future generations out of mandated programs (paying medicare and Social security taxes, etc, while providing means to protect those who were forced under penalty of law to invest in these programs?

Gun rights:Is the candidate committed to supporting the right to bear arms along with the other rights in the constitution? Does he support gun grabs, registration, waiting periods, or so-called assault weapons bans? If he does, then he does not support the second amendment. It should be noted that Adolph Hilter supported full gun registration in National Socialist (NAZI) Germany. Only a dictator fears an armed populace.

Illegal Immigration: Does the candidate endorse “comprehensive immigration reform” or “guest worker programs to legalize those here illegally” or any form of amnesty? If so, then he does not oppose illegal immigration. It should be noted, that if a candidate supported and promoted serious reforms like those mentioned above, that illegal immigration would be greatly deterred. A president that cuts off federal money to cities in general will also go a long way in undermining so called “Sanctuary cities” because they will be forced to rely entirely on tax money extorted from their own people to pay for illegal aliens. A president that refuses to get in the way of a state that is actively seeking to solve its own illegal immigration problem would get a positive rating on this, and it could create an environment where other states would be willing to enforce the laws without getting sued by a government that refuses to protect them from an invasion. Radical Chicano groups support the idea of seizing the southwest US by mass immigration.

Foreign Affairs: Is a candidate dedicated to pursuing America’s interests? Will they oppose using any federal tax dollars for foreign aid? Will they remove America from harmful progressive international treaties? Will they work towards removing us from the UN and from supporting it with our tax dollars and troops? Will they speak out against and oppose Kyoto and other treaties designed to strangle American businesses? Will they speak out against and oppose any and all treaties that would harm our second amendment rights, or any other rights? Will they speak out against “climate debt” or other globalist scams designed to redistribute wealth and induce guilt because of success. Is the candidate willing to go to war on behalf of the UN? Is the candidate willing to go to war without having a congressional declaration of war? If the answer is yes, then the candidate has no respect for the separation of powers or the danger of “entangled alliances” like the UN which pit our interests against the interests of socialists and other kinds of dictators.

Constitutional fidelity: the above tenants basically embody this one, and all would move America towards a limited government like that in line with what the founders intended.

All of these tentants rely on one more thing, and this will determine their honesty even if they profess adamant support for any or all of the preceding items:

Time Frame: When does a candidate intend to start taking concrete steps towards the above goals? Within 10 years? 15? Any candidate that does not pledge to take steps in his first term of office is in fact pledging to do nothing. Some glitzy “waste reductions” and speeches and more and more promises will mean nothing. Passing a budget that starts to reduce spending “by 2016″ or some future date is committed to doing nothing now. Unfortunately, by passing the ball to a future year, the candidate has no responsibility to work on it now. Further, he could get replaced and his promised future reforms overturned. I don’t care if a candidate pledges to cut the budget by 25% by 2020, I care what they do NOW to accomplish these goals. Talking about future actions and making promises that extend to future congresses or presidencies is just foolish. They can no more guarantee their reelection than they can promise a sunny day on July 4th this year. (At least so long as we maintain free and fair elections).

I will not endorse a candidate who is not moving forward on these agenda items in some tangible way. Where do candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fall on these issues? It should be fairly obvious by now that they intend either to continue the status quo, or continue to drag us farther from these goals. Do not endorse a candidate just because “they are electable.”  It doesn’t matter how electable they are if they indulge in the status quo or take us even farther down the road to serfdom.

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, culture, deception, Election, Election 2012, health care, Immigration, news, Obama, Ohio, politics, Presidential, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

An Analysis of Mitt Romney’s “Growth Agenda”

Posted by americana83 on June 6, 2011

MItt Romney - Job Creation Quote

Mitt Romney explains what he thinks the government's role in job creation is.

While no one can argue with low taxes, the rest of the list- remember this is in relation to the federal government- should give any conservative pause.

Dynamic regulation,” seems to be an unusual position for one branding himself as a conservative. Flexible regulations with no relation to what they actually say would only cause confusion amongst business forced to attempt to comply with them. Reducing regulations, while seeking to prevent new ones would be a the best idea of a president looking to use his role to reduce the post-constitutional mentality of the modern federal government.

Educational achievement.” The more the federal government has taken over education, the more it has degraded. Further federal subsidization or manipulation of what should be local or state matters will only serve to spend much more money and achieve poorer, albeit more “politically correct” results.

Investment in research” This is code speak for spending tax dollars on federal projects. While this may create a few jobs, they are not the free market, and thus are a burden to the economy and not a benefit. Let the free market choose where to invest in research.

Robust Competition” Again, here is something that one cannot really argue with. However, in light of his commitment to “dynamic regulation” and his own ObamaCare, Jr, one has to doubt seriously a President Romney’s commitment to the principles of a free market of “robust competition.”

Free Trade” As far as this goes towards supporting multinational agreements that take American trade policy control outside of the US will be the extent to which it actually undermines trade policy that will benefit the US.

Purposeful” Immigration. This is probably the most meaningless statement on the entire page. Every immigrant, illegal or otherwise, has a purpose in coming to America. More than likely, it is code for “comprehensive immigration reform,” which is itself code for amnesty for illegal immigrants already here.

Seeking to eliminate government waste” Even Obama utters this phrase from time to time. Merely streamlining existing government spending will not do anything to balance the budget or allow the free market to create jobs.

Seeking to eliminate excessive litigation” This sounds good too, but who determines what is excessive? Is it referring to frivolous suits against corporations and businesses, or is it referring to litigation against the government’s overreach? Its pretty hard to tell.

Runaway healthcare costs” The government has supposedly been battling this for a while. But it seems the more the government gets involved, the more skewed health care costs become. How will Romney attempt to battle “runaway healthcare costs?” Probably like he did as governor, that is, his own flavor of mandated healthcare insurance and government control thereof.

Dependence on foreign oil” Romney, Obama and everyone else claims to want to do this. Yet since the creation of the Department of Energy, we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil. Will Romney roll back federal restrictions on exploration for oil, or perhaps return federally occupied lands to the states wherein they reside? It doesn’t seem likely.

America’s only economic agenda ought to be to ensure a free market and an honest judicial system in which to resolve disputes.

Mitt then goes on to list some policy positions based on the above “growth agenda” (SOURCE: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/job-creation 6-6-2011)

Smaller Government

Reverse President Obama’s massive expansion of federal power
We must cut federal spending to free up resources for productive investment, and curtail ever-expanding federal authority to provide businesses with the certainty and stability they need to make those investments. As President, Mitt Romney will place a hard cap on federal spending, forcing Washington politicians to control the size and growth of government.

There are some serious flaws in the above. First and foremost, the President does not have the power of the purse, that lies with Congress, more specifically, the House of Representatives. Second, The government must NOT cut spending to “free up resources for productive investment,” it must cut spending to return to solvency WITHOUT taking on more spending, no matter how “productive” it may promise to be.

Economic Competitiveness

Make America the most attractive place in the world to do business Today, more than ever, new businesses can choose where to form and existing ones can choose where to invest and hire. America has long been the most dynamic economy in the world, and we must not let our government change that. As President, Mitt Romney will:

  • Lower taxes on businesses to keep America competitive in the global economy
  • Slash bureaucratic red tape and place a hard cap on the impact that federal regulations can have on the economy
  • Limit the corrosive influence of union bosses on productive businesses
This sounds good, but instead of attempting to place an undefined “hard cap” on the impact of federal regulations, why not delete the actual regulations causing the problems. Well, again the problem is the fact that congress has the law making power, not the president. The most the executive branch can do is to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law. How does a president limit “the corrosive influence” of union bosses on productive businesses? It would seem to me that labor laws are the jurisdiction of the states per the 10th amendment.

Free Trade On Fair Terms

Open markets on fair terms for our products and services around the world
Access to foreign markets is crucial to growing our economy. We must reassert American leadership in international negotiations, follow through on commitments we have already made, and push aggressively for advantageous new agreements.

Who is defining fair? America must only accept agreements that are beneficial to itself. Our government is not a charity, and harming hardworking Americans to earn federal politicians international fame is disgusting. If the commitments that were “already made” are illegal agreements which the government did not have the authority to create or enforce, then they should be terminated as well.

Energy Security and Independence

Meet the challenge of achieving a secure and affordable supply of fuels
We need to lower the amount of energy we use and increase the supply of domestic energy sources. Government must be a partner, not an obstacle, in this effort. As President, Mitt Romney will facilitate the exploration and development of conventional fossil fuels, remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the construction of nuclear power plants, and address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.

We do not need to lower the amount of energy we use, or if we do, it is not a governmental concern. Government should neither be a partner, nor an obstacle, but the states and companies should lead the way in their own efforts. The best things the government could do is end immediately all subsidies for so-called alternative energy sources and let them fight for competitiveness on a level playing field. Necessity breeds invention, and those with the incentive and skill to perhaps make wind and solar energy work will be drowned out in the sea of subsidized “green” companies who do not have to improve their products or attain ever increasing levels of efficiency in order to be profitable.
Perhaps the most ominous phrase in this section, and the one which completely destroys Romney’s claims of free market champion is this: “Address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.” This should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves freedom because what this means is this: The people operating on the principle of freedom of economic choice are not making the decisions we (the government) like. Therefore, we need to nudge them (command economy, socialism) towards the things we think they should be purchasing.

Training and Preparing America’s Workers

Prepare the American workforce to succeed in a 21st-century economy
Our economy is rapidly changing. Some of the steps we must take to restart economic growth—for instance, expanding trade relationships and developing new sources of energy—will only hasten that evolution. We need to eliminate ineffective government handouts, and instead give workers the resources and responsibility to develop valuable skills and make the transition to new types of work.

The federal government has no role to train workers, nor to allocate tax payer money for the purpose. The federal government also has neither the credibility nor authority to determine what constitutes “valuable skills” or to plan the economy.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney does not have a conservative economic agenda which, even aside from the above analysis of his presidential economic platform, should be apparent from his endorsement of RomneyCare. He also lacks an understanding of the proper authority vested in the Executive Branch  by the Constitution.

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, deception, Election, Election 2012, Immigration, Legal, Obama, Presidential, public schools, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Owe No: An Anti-Tea Party Trojan Horse

Posted by americana83 on November 16, 2010

There is a glitzy high dollar campaign running now featuring a spoof presidential candidate “Hugh Jidette,” A play on the words “Huge Debt.” The thrust of the campaign is to draw attention to the mounting national deficit and to then offer “solutions” to the impending crises. It all looks and sounds really good… on the surface. But upon closer inspection, the message which seems tailored to the current tea party angst that recently swept many long time progressives from office (including establishment liberal republicans in the primaries).

You can see their videos here:

The “owe no” campaign featuring Hugh Jidette is NOT a conservative campaign. It is not a “tea party” campaign. It is new, quasi-conservative rhetoric surrounding an old-fashioned false-face defense of both old progressive programs, and the recently enacted ObamaCare legislation. Its purported solutions will do nothing to decrease either the deficit or the size and scope of the federal government. Hence, it will also do nothing to decrease the size of the federal budget.

Update 11-23-2010: OweNo is a  project of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation is chaired by its namesake, who happens to be chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR for short. The CFR is a powerful thinktank that advocates internationalist and progressive causes, which are often intertwined. The Owe No campaign has been designed by the progressive Peter G. Peterson to direct Tea Party energy towards actually supporting the very things the Tea Party Movement is against.

The way the “Solutions” section is organized reveals the progressive nature of the “Owe No” campaign, which sees only four sections to the federal budget: Defense, HealthCare, Social Security, and “other.”

Here is what OweNo says about defense:

America’s military is the strongest fighting force in the world. And it should be since the United States spends more on defense than the next 14 countries, combined. We can develop a defense budget that protects our nation against our most important threats in an affordable way. Reviewing our priorities and making responsible choices can generate significant savings, while also maintaining national security and an important role for the U.S. in the world. An over-bloated defense program that adds to our debt burdens and hurts our economic future is certainly not good for national security.

Possible changes to our defense budget include: eliminating costly weapons systems, reducing troop deployments overseas, lowering the number of nuclear weapons, and reforming military pay and benefits.

While there is clearly value in reducing foreign commitments, There is no value in eliminate weapons or reducing America’s arsenal. The destruction of, or forfeiture to international control of America’s nuclear arsenal is ironically, something that Communists have pursued for decades. Further, is the pay for the men and women who serve us with their lives really the place to start cutting the debt? It is if you desire a weak US and demoralized army, something that progressives desire, as they would much rather see an empowered UN serving as the ultimate Big Brother with full power to regulate and tax and control nations, communities and individuals. The CFR supports global government as built on efforts to curtail carbon, as well as the accompanying redistribution of US wealth to other countries. Given the source of the Owe No, campaign, it can be expected that it will not take a constitutional conservative position on domestic issues either and, as it turns out, it doesn’t.

Here is what they say about Healthcare. It is interesting how similar some of it is to Obama’s rhetoric and how they ignore the elephant in the room, that is the federal government paying for healthcare:

Healthcare represents 44% of projected federal spending by 2040, and is the largest and fastest growing fiscal challenge. The federal government spends money on healthcare through various programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and insurance for government employees.

The U.S. spends twice as much per person on health care than most other countries, but our results are no better. The rapid growth in healthcare costs has placed a huge burden on families, businesses and the federal government. If we don’t take action soon to change these trends, health care costs will lead to more and more borrowing and leave fewer resources for our economy and our daily lives.

In order to address this important component of our fiscal challenge, we need to lower healthcare spending, and particularly to slow the growth in these costs. However, we all want to maintain high quality care for Americans and avoid making changes that would result in poorer health. Therefore, we need to get more “value for our money” in healthcare — spending less, while achieving better health. Options to consider include: developing best practices, promoting wellness, reforming the payment system (so that it rewards good patient outcomes rather than simply tests and services), reforming medical malpractice laws, and using technology to improve efficiency.

Our results are no better? Is that why Canadians come here to get treatment? They don’t even take issue with the federal government choosing what constitutes “best practices” and “promoting wellness” and seizing control and telling doctors and hospitals what they MUST charge? You will notice also, that they have no problem at all with “Obamacare.” In fact, they recognize healthcare as a federal responsibility:

As a nation, we need to work together to make this system more efficient, so that we can put America on a better path, both fiscally and for our health.  There are many ways that we can make our healthcare system more efficient and effective. SOURCE

They even lift Obamacare’s “patient outcomes” payment method, where the number of tests and procedures doesn’t matter, but only vaguely defined “outcomes.” How can this result in anything but less tests and procedures being done? Notice also how they talk as if  “the healthcare system” is a single entity that is to fall under the control of the federal government.

Adopting better ways to organize the healthcare system, so that doctors and hospitals are helping to lower costs.  For example, paying hospitals based on good patient outcomes rather than the number of tests and procedures and encouraging integrated groups of providers who can better coordinate care at a lower cost . SOURCE

Here is what they say about Social Security:

Social Security is an important program that is part of the fabric of the America. We must ensure that Social Security is available for future generations. Without reform, Social Security’s shortfall will grow larger and larger until the program will simply be unable to pay full benefits to future retirees. By acting sooner rather than later, needed reforms can be phased in more gradually, giving people time to plan for retirement years. Reforms can also be implemented in ways that protect the most vulnerable. Options to address these shortfalls include: raising the retirement age gradually, reducing the automatic growth in benefit payments, and increasing the amounts collected from workers.

Real world translation: You will pay more and wait longer to get less, INCREASING YOUR SS TAX! Please pass this on and let people know this “Owe No” campaign is BOGUS. It is progressivism sprinkled with conserva-speak. If there was any grain of conservatism in this, they would put a ‘phased withdraw from Social (in)security on the table and let people take back their own money and prepare for their own retirement. Protecting the most vulnerable means that some will pay in more and get fewer “benefits,” that is, less of their own money back. In other words, Obama’s wealth redistribution program. Social Security is an unjust program that robs people and provides meager return. A phased withdraw from forced retirement programs would be the best course of action. Falling somewhere in between would be the transformation of Social Security into actual private accounts that you could track and pass on to your children or spouse or whomever your will designates WITHOUT restriction or limitation.

Here is what they say about the “other 21 percent” of the federal budget. (As if this is insignificant).

Making changes to defense, healthcare and Social Security will help us reduce our debt and also leave money to fund other critical responsibilities and make important investments in our future. But there are also opportunities to save money in the remaining 21% of government spending, which includes things such as agriculture, transportation, homeland security, education, unemployment benefits, national parks, international relations, and the operations of government. All of these areas need to be reviewed so that we can find savings and reduce wasteful and ineffective activities.

Things like FEDERAL funding of education, unemployment benefits, international relations (foreign aid?) need to be seriously debated and then not just reduce waste or eliminate “ineffective activities” but completely eliminate ALL unconstitutional funding and programs from ALL areas of the federal government.

Then if you still think “Owe No” might be serious about fiscal conservatism and constitutional government, they also support energy taxes, IE cap and trade!

Options to consider include: making our tax system less complicated, increasing rates for individuals and/or corporations, eliminating or scaling back tax deductions, introducing new taxes (for example on energy or consumption); reducing corporate taxes and replacing them with others, improving tax collection and prosecuting tax cheats.

Source of quotes (unless otherwise noted in article):

The Peter G Peterson Foundation (PGPF) is the money behind the OweNo Campaign, and here is an interesting exert from their official press release:

PGPF also works to raise awareness and inspire citizens across the nation to engage on the development of solutions to the growing fiscal challenges that threaten the long-term future of our nation, through initiatives such as the critically acclaimed film “I.O.U.S.A.”, the “Indebtedcampaign in conjunction with MTV, a grant to Columbia University to create a national curriculum on fiscal issues, and a “Fiscal Wake Up Tour” with The Concord Coalition. Additionally, the Foundation engages in policy research in areas such as healthcare payment and delivery reform.

Have you ever known MTV to be involved with anything beyond “progressive” politics?

The Concord Coalition likes Obamacare’s special tax on good healthcare plans, and seems to generally like Obamacare, even offering their subtle suggestions for “improving” this onerous government intrusion. Link (scroll to end of article for their suggestions).  Notice throughout the article a general lack of concern about the Constitutionality of the law, and their naive faith that the law is as its strongest proponents suggested it was.

Some quotes from the Concord Coalition’s website:

The most obvious benefit of either bill is that they would expand health insurance coverage to almost all Americans. According to CBO estimates, the House bill would expand coverage from 83 percent of the legal nonelderly population in 2010 to 96 percent by 2015. The Senate version would expand such coverage to 94 percent by 2016.

The revenue package in the Senate bill holds more promise to reduce the deficit than the House version because the Senate bill’s largest component — the excise tax on high-cost insurance plans – will better keep pace with the growth rate of health care spending, and will also work to lower health care costs.

A tax base that includes health spending. Taxes on this base allow revenues to grow at approximately the same rate as expenses. Taxing employer-provided health benefits (which are now exempt from the federal income tax) is one example of a revenue source that will keep pace with the costs of health care. As an added benefit, such taxes further the reform goal of letting consumers see a truer price of health care — thus working to hold down spending.

Taxes not limited to a very narrow segment of the population. Limiting tax increases to only the very richest households means that marginal tax rates on such households would likely rise substantially compared with a tax increase levied on the broader population. Not only does this increase any adverse effects of the tax on economic incentives, but it raises a potential political challenge as one small segment of the population is asked to pay for the benefits that go largely to others. Broadly based tax increases, even if they remain progressive, spread the notion that all must contribute something for government benefits — imposing an important breaker against “free lunch” spending giveaways.

SOURCE:

The OweNo campaign is a progressive trojan horse that is not aligned with constitutional authority. It should NOT be supported by any Constitution and freedom loving conservative. Please share this article with others and tell them to “Just say NO!” To Owe No and their false fiscal conservatism.

http://oweno.com/solutions/ data pulled 11-16-2010.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Restoring Honor: Take up your cross

Posted by americana83 on August 31, 2010

August 29th, 2010

This Saturday on August 28, Glenn Beck hosted a rally at the Lincoln Memorial. I have been to many rallies and tea parties, both locally in Ohio and in Washington, DC. They have been exciting events, giving direction to many Americans newly awakened to the new and ongoing threats to our country. The information and passion has served as a catalyst to do something more than just complain. However, the Restoring Honor rally was an event in a league of its own. Beck and company avoided anything overtly political, though I must say that faith, living faith, will impact not only your personal prayer life, but your public life, your words, beliefs and actions. (Time magazine was apparently ignorant of this fact when they criticized Aldeva King for her stances on abortion and marriage). No candidates were endorsed, and no political speeches were made. The closest reference one could get was Sarah Palin’s comment that we do not want to see our country “fundamentally transformed,” a reference to the cryptically ominous statement made by the now president Barack Obama. But even this statement is easily defensible. To “fundamentally transform” this country is to change more than parties or politicians, but the very fundamental bedrock of this country: God, the Constitution, and the family. President Obama has made great efforts to transform and distort these fundamentals of American freedom and prosperity.

The Beck rally was amazing. I would say absolutely not one soul less than 500,000 men and women (and very likely many more) of diverse colors and ages came together to rally around the principles of “faith hope and charity.” Prayers were offered up to the Lord Jesus Christ and pleas were made for divine intervention in the course and direction of this country. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s best legacy of a dream of racial equality was honored throughout the event, and by his niece Aldeva King, who’s mere presence at the rally was a defiant stand of faith against those who would use race as a wedge to divide Americans against each other, including Al Sharpton, who chose to stage a protest rally against “faith hope and charity.”

It was a call for all Americans to turn to God and seek to be on his side. It was a time of thanksgiving and gratitude for the brave men and women who have given life or limb to defend the freedoms we hold dear. As to which ‘God’ was honored I will say this: Glenn tipped the hat to the religious liberty we have in this land (the freedom to worship as we choose and to engage in the religion of our own free will), but the knee was bowed to Jesus Christ. Hundreds of pastors and rabbis of all colors were present on the stage as part of a modern black robe regiment, the pastors who dared to spark the brushfires in peoples’ spirits that kindled the American revolution and lead to a new birth of freedom.

It was a call for Americans to stand together, with a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Not a dead, vague faith, but a living and active faith in the Living God who was and is and will always be. A faith that is not afraid to pledge the life, liberty and treasure of its bearer for the sake of future generations, for the sake of the truth of God, for the right.

It was a fearful and amazing experience, to hear the name of Christ resounding across a croud a million strong, (plus a hundred thousand or so streaming it over the internet), to see Americans united in a noble and holy cause.

How can we raise up a new generation of leaders to restore honor in America? It will be impossible without recognizing the Founding Principal upon which this nation was founded. Before we can succeed in restoring the honor of the political entity that is the United States of America, we must first restore honor in our families, in our own souls. Man’s honor is restored by turning towards the grace granted us by God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16). George Washington recognized the vitality God and the Bible gave to a young nation. The founders were by and large men of God. We cannot succeed in this endeavor without being on the side of God. We must walk uprightly, we must take the high ground. We must be honorable. We must be truthful. We must be charitable. We must not let corruption or deception or violence destroy us. We MUST pray. We MUST seek his face. The Bible says if we draw near to God, he will draw near to us. Let the following verses guide us in our lives and our quest to recover and restore the greatest elements of America. Read Proverbs, read the Gospels. Study the Scriptures. For in them you will see the heart of God, the words of the Author of Liberty. These are words written in stone that no man, no congress, no politician, or any man can destroy or deface or nullify. Our rights are Unalienable, they are endowed by our Creator. Among these are life (eternal to those who ask), liberty (including freedom from the bondage of sin and evil), and the pursuit of happiness (including the true happiness that is found in Christ alone).

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. 2nd Chronicles 7:14

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
(Matthew 16:24)

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Meet the Candidates Night: 15th Congressional District

Posted by americana83 on February 27, 2010

Recently, nearly all the candidates for Ohio’s 15th congressional district were invited to participate in a “meet the candidate night.” Of these, Dave Ryon, Steve Stivers and John Adams filled out the questionnaire and participated in the Q & A. There was apparently one other candidate who showed up, but had not filled out the questionnaire, or have knowledge of what 9/12 was (The Union County 9/12 and Central Ohio 9/12 groups were hosting the event). Mary Jo Kilroy, the current representative, ignored the invitation, though her presence was made known throughout the night as candidates explained how they would strive to bring responsive, constitutional representation back to the 15th congressional district.

All of the candidates were asked if they would sign a “fiscal responsibility pledge.” All candidates were then provided with one, and all appeared to sign it. There was an addendum on the pledge about “ear mark reform transparency and up or down votes.

NOTE: If a candidate, agreed with another candidate on an answer, go to the same number under that candidate’s responses. I have added some notes following certain questions. I have done a minimal amount of editing to the following transcribed answers to make it more readable. If you see any errors, please contact me.

The questions were as follows:

  1. What does the oath of office mean to you?
  2. What type of tax system do you think would be ideal?
  3. What is wrong with our current healthcare system. And how would you fix it?
  4. Earmarks (that you are against) in a bill you and your constituents are in favor of, how would you vote on that bill and why – best interests of the country, or your special interest?
  5. Putting the axe to government” What are to 2 steps to shrink deficit
  6. What do you plan to do to beat [Kilroy] in the general election. How’s your war chest (Campaign cash)
  7. How would you handle unemployment: what role does the fed government actually have?
  8. What is your solution to illegal immigration? (Est 20 Million illegals burdens infrastructure).
  9. How do you feel about gun rights and the second amendment, and… (two part)
  10. who do each of you turn to for advice and favorite person. “you admire” (alluding to the statement Anita Dunn made about who she turns to for political wisdom, Mother Teresa and Mao Tse Tung).

Dave Ryon

  1. The oath of office … is to listen” “if you listen to the people you have more answers” I will listen to article 1 section 8” “You can take that to the bank. PLEDGE: No vacations if I am elected, will be on call” “You will here back from me right away”
  2. Wouldn’t mind seeing it a lot flatter, 0%, repeal 16th amendment. 1.2 trillion over seas every year, Feds collect 1.2 trillion dollars from individuals like your self. “Have you pay the state revenue department to decide how to distribute federal tax dollars.” “Can hold back the dollars those federal programs are spending now, and giving the power back to the states”
  3. Agrees with Stivers, health care tax deductions. “Steve gave a good answer”
  4. Is it moral, is it constitutional, do we need it, and can we afford it” If the answer is no to any of these 4 questions, then I will vote no. If I vote yes, “I have read the entire thing”
  5. Would not support increasing debt ceiling. Next move is a balanced budget amendment.”Federal Government should too”
  6. I am offering you a constitutional conservative that is running. Pro life, pro 10th amendment. Pledge to follow Art 1 sec 8. “if women have a right to an abortion, what we are saying is that the children in their womb are property.” “That is slavery… was abolished long ago.”
  7. Go back to the fundamental promise. “we need to deregulate” “Forcing companies to put out so much money… they have to drop jobs” Monetary policy is terrible in this country” -Fed Reserve. Devalued $ = job loss. “once we have a strong dollar, you will see a boost in employment”
  8. Agree with Steve. “There was talk of outsourcing port security” If you are here illegally, you should be sent back immediately.
  9. Against any legislation that would diminish right to bear arms.” “the man who inspired me to run for office was congressman Ron Paul.” [Paul] has a finger on the “constitutional pulse” “He’s my inspiration to be running today.”

Steve Stivers

  1. Very Seriously” “Privilege” “Stand up for the folks that sent you there” “I take that pledge very seriously as a member of the armed forces…very seriously…”
  2. What kind of tax reform would be appropriate. “I support a flatter, more simple tax system than we have now.” “Close loopholes” “Won’t have to pay as many people to work for”
  3. First, scrap the bill in front of Washington right now” “Start from scratch” “best health care in the world” first problem- “healthcare not portable, no one knows what anything costs.” 5 stitches: $1750. give incentive to healthy living – Defensive medicine, tort reform “Insurance across state lines” There are “billions dollars of waste in Medicare and Medicaid we have to go after”
  4. I like the way David answered it.” “the public needs to have time to understand them”
  5. 1st balanced budget law immediately. 2nd balanced budget amendment. LINE ITEM VETO. Performance based budgeting. And move to a 2 year budget cycle from a 1 yr budget cycle. “congress only made it through 2 of their budget bills” NOTE: A line item veto is unconstitutional, as it would transfer legislative power from Congress to the president. Congress already ignores laws, they would almost certainly ignore any sort of balanced budget law.
  6. He is a “Battle tested candidate” My focus is to beat Mary Jo Kilroy. I will make sure that happens” “I will make sure MJK not in congress. His war chest is over 600,000 by end of December. 515,000 on hand. Raised 2.3 Million last time. About 3K volunteers. MJK is on record on “cap & trade” HK bonuses, GM, “I’ll have the money and resources and the man power” Like John said, Mary JO must Go. NOTE: Was the only candidate that appeared to answer the question about their financial status.
  7. Government’s role is to provide a sound climate for business. Government doesn’t create jobs” “Role of government is to keep taxes low.” NOTE: This is great.
  8. what “we absolutely have to NOT do is give amnesty. we can’t allow people to commit illegal acts and not have there be no consequences.” “you don’t have a border unless you secure your border.” “active and passive measures” “if someone is here illegally and we capture them, they should go home.” “Eventually, we need to do immigration reform” “Should be based on what our economy needs” “help, not hurt the country.” “We cannot continue to thrive and prosper unless we deal with this issue…its costing trillions in additional resources
  9. Co-sponsored concealed carry, castle doctrine. Endorsed by NRA in 2008 and is a member. “I have been and will always be a supporter of the 2nd amendment of the constitution.”
  10. My wife and James Madison, “one of the smartest men that set up our constitutional framework.

John Adams

Note: At the beginning, when candidates were supposed to introduce themselves, John launched into an attack on Steve that took him well past the 10 minutes allotted to each candidate to introduce themselves. He jibed Steve: “We can not defeat her [Mary Jo Kilroy] with a [sorry Steve] moderate.” and used some of Kilroy’s attack ad points to attack Steve Stivers. While there are appropriate venues to do so, this was setup to introduce the candidates and get them to answer questions submitted to the Union County 9/12.

  1. So help me I do, I would take that oath… Solemn oath…There to serve the people” “all politics is local. take that seriously” “Trying to find the word here, I’m 64…”
  2. You reduce taxes at same time (you) reduce the size of the federal government.” “hundreds of thousands more employees [Feds]. “Reduce it, make it work smarter”
  3. The first thing we have to do is stop government run healthcare.” “That’s not America” “Encourage free market system” Insurance should be allowed to sell “anywhere in the United States” “Tort reform “vast amounts of money for insurance [doctors]” “Real tort reform” “millions of people out of work…how do you buy health insurance if you don’t have a job?”
  4. No way.” “They [issues] should be separated out”
  5. First step. “fire Obama.” [shrink it “in a gradual way” “realistically we could bring it down with a new congress -10%” Cut congress pay 10%. 10% per year. “not wasting the people’s money
  6. Focused on Mr Stivers right now. I go no where after may 4th if I don’t win” Kilroy is a “socialist progressive” “She’s a rubber stamp for that crowd [obama-reid-pelosi]” would address abortion issue with Kilroy. Roe V Wade “one of the worst decisions we have made in our country.” “abortion must come to a stop”
  7. we start working on our own energy sources” We have vast amounts of oil reserves nationwide. Coal oil natural gas. “2000 years of our own resources.” “energy = your economy” Work on domestic energy to put people back to work. “we could become a net exporter [of energy]”
  8. We need to seal our border “still porous” “Free transportation back to where they came from” Should have to come like “every other immigrant.
  9. Absolutely support 2nd amendment.
  10. My wife – she is my inspiration…”

Final thoughts: I felt Steve and David performed quite well. Both behaved respectably and followed the rules and for the most part answered the questions. I felt that John, despite his newness to the area, handled himself most like a traditional politician, launching into attacks and providing formula answers. David Ryon appeared to have the strongest grasp of constitutional limitations, in the rapid fire questions, he was the only one not tripped up by the hypothetical “national right to work” law, which would go beyond the article 1, section 8 limitations on congress. Steve Stivers also responded very professionally to the attacks unexpectedly launched by Adams. Adams, apparently dissatisfied with the forum, has removed all references to tea parties and 9/12 from his website. A Google cache from February 23rd still shows the sections referring to Tea Parties and 9/12. If this is not the case, I invite comment.

The candidates’ websites are listed below:

Dave Ryon: http://www.ryonforcongress.com/

Steve Stivers: http://www.stivers4congress.com/

John Adams: http://www.johnadams2010.com/

The Union County 912′s homepage:

http://912unioncounty.org/

The Union County 912 meetup:

http://www.meetup.com/We-Surround-Them-ULC/

Disclaimer: This review and commentary is not endorsed by the Union County 9/12 and contains the work and opinions of Americana83.com.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

the truth about D’s and R’s

Posted by americana83 on October 23, 2009

I am sure that some of you think I march lock-step with the GOP based on the things I have written about Barack Obama and all his sordid associations. However, if you think that, you have missed the point. Especially within the last year, the GOP has shown an abandonment of the professed principles that attracted me to it in the first place: family values, small government, low taxes, free market. However, it has become much more like the Democrat Party. Lets explore what has happened in the GOP, especially from the last months of G.W. Bush up to now.

George W Bush, really got the ball rolling by signing off on the Democratic progressives’ 700 billion dollar TARP fiasco. The government had no business doing that, and G.W. Bush, as a self-professing conservative, had no business signing off on something so grossly unconstitutional.

Michael Steele. Despite the initial excitement over his being named to the GOP chair, he quickly showed his true colors. In a GQ Interview that has since been scrubbed from the GQ website, Steele dug himself into a hole by revealing how he truly feels about conservatism, marriage, and abortion.

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a d**n about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a d**n.

We “offer them nothing?” We “just don’t like them?” Does he think throwing in a curse word makes him trendy?  Has Steele fell into the Al Sharpton/Rev Wright/ Barack Obama mindset that conservative thought is inherently racist? It is clear that Steele knows very little about conservatism. True conservatism doesn’t offer handouts, or bribes for votes. What conservatism offers is equality. No one is esteemed above another on account of their race. Race quotas, race preferences, those things say “look, you’re not good enough because your a minority, and we need to give you a bonus so you can stand up against the non-minorities.” That is diametrically opposed to conservatism, which stresses the individual over the collective. Any organization that claims conservatism, while embracing racism, attempts to integrate an alien and evil ideology that subverts the whole claim of conservatism.

Now lets see what he says about homosexuality:

Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.

For a Seminarian, who would presumably have read the scriptures, God has a clear commandment for would-be priests/pastors/reverend:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(1 Timothy 3:1-2). He would also have known this: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). He would also have been aware of the New Testament condemnation of such behaviors, and that a priest that is “dead in his sins” could never rightly divide the Word of God.

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Steele tossed his “faith tradition” under the bus. Apparently being a man pleaser is more important than being right. To rephrase his answer another way, “I’m not going to let my faith influence my positions.” Sounds a lot like a certain Senator John Kerry, who’s own professed faith played no role in any decisions he made regarding moral matters. He also throws the perverted concept that sexual perversions are the equivalent of race. Race is immutable, sexual preferences can change. His answer to that last question is just a bunch of waffling. There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, radical scientists have been searching for it for years.

How about abortion? What does Steele think about that?

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.

Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.

It is the whole stupid concept of the “big tent” that has condemned the GOP to electoral hades.  The party doesn’t claim to stand for anything. Obama and the Democrats are clear where they stand on many issues, even if they are dead wrong. A “big tent” can’t take a stand, a big tent has no choice but to move to the left to pick up the abortionists and the homosexuals and the socialists. Perhaps Steele wasn’t aware that one of the main reasons people were attracted to the GOP is for its professed pro-life stance. So much for “core values and principles,” Steel has chucked those under the bus in his quest to create an ecumenical mush that is incapable of drawing the hard core from the Democrat party, and too perverse to attract the conservative faithful.

The truth about D’s and R’s is this: The Republican party is rapidly selling out its principles and becoming a progressive party, akin to the progressive wing of the Democrat party. If I wanted a liberal candidate, I’d have voted for the progressive democrat. But with party bigwigs like the RNC and Newt Gingrich lining up to endorse and fund Progressives running as Republicans, it looks like you can just vote GOP to get a leftist. With Obama’s progressive appointees worshipping Mao, embracing Islamic Sharia law, and sponsoring gay p!rn, “mere” liberals may look like a better choice. However, the end result will be the same. When a republican receives the Margaret Sanger radical abortionist award, it is time to revoke the conservative credentials of ANYONE who supports, funds or endorses that candidate, regardless of their party affiliation.

All this said, parties labels increasingly mean nothing. It all has to do with positions. Ideologically speaking, liberals embrace change, conservatives preserve the norm. So depending on what is being preserved or changed, either label could be good or bad. With respect to the past, yesterday’s republicans where liberals, in the sense that they opposed tenaciously the establishment of slavery, and sought to change it. So the term “liberal” can be good depending on what kind of change is being sought. Movements towards personal freedoms in china would be liberal in the generic sense. However, on the modern political scene in America, Liberal has come to be associated with a specific set of goals, especially at the federal level. Among them are:

Changing society to embrace abortion as an absolute right

Changing society to embrace homosexuality as beautiful

Changing society to redistribute wealth

Changing society to abhor and abolish private ownership of guns

Change society to accept that government’s duty is to provide everything for its citizens

Change society to believe that profit is evil

Change society to believe religion (Christianity) has no place in the public square

Change society by creating permanent racial divisions, that some are more equal than others

Change society by submerging American exceptionalism and promoting globalist socialism (United Nations)

Changing society by getting citizens to accept outrageous government control (soda tax, carbon tax) out of fear

Changing society by rewarding law breakers (illegal immigrants)

Changing society to believe in a dubious “living constitution” that doesn’t actually mean what it says, but rather, whatever they want it to.

Changing society into a collective, and submerging the individual within it.

John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every other major progressive Democrat politician supports most, if not all, of the above positions and are thus liberal. However, progressive republican politicians like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, DeDe Scozzafava, John McCain and others are increasingly supporting the above statement in a self-centered attempt to grow and strengthen a party structure as opposed to doing what is best for America and her people. Yet both sides of the isle will, when it is beneficial to their own agenda, in many cases parrot a conservative line to deceive the voters into supporting them. President Obama used a good conservative message of self-reliance in the final version of his school speech:

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. SOURCE

Basically, the meaning of the conservatism I espouse is this:

Preserving the concept of unborn children’s rights

Preserving the definition of marriage as between a woman and man

Preserving the right of people to keep what they earn legally

Preserving the private ownership of guns, and means of self defense.

Preserving the concept of personal and religious responsibility.

Preserving the right of people to earn a profit and spend or invest it as they desire.

Preserve the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that is what made us strong

Preserve the concept that there should be equality, no institutionalized racial preference or deference.

Restore American exceptionalism by getting us out of entangling alliances that are detrimental to our people (the UN)

Preserve American freedom by opposing all punitive taxes and government power grabs (global warming, soda tax)

Restore the concept that law breakers should be punished, not rewarded for their deeds.

Restore the concept of “original intent,” that the constitution means what it says it does, and that it actually guarantees the rights it claims to.

Preserving right of the individual to excel, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity, not outcome

I hope this clarifies my positions on the political parties, and that I do not champion a corrupt and liberal Republican party  as a replacement to the corrupt and liberal Democrat regime we currently reside under. I hope you will join me in seeking out and supporting conservative constitutionalists that will uphold the best and highest ideals of the American experiment, and speak out with boldness against radicals- regardless of party affiliation.

Actions speak louder than words. Listen and take heed. The future of our republic is at stake.

Newt teams up with Nancy Pelosi to sell the American people on global “climate change,” which is merely a UN scheme to soak the US for more money and even sovereignty:

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. (SOURCE: official UN site)

unofficial carbon credit ration coupon, based on WWII ration coupon

I daresay NO one who was a genuine conservative would sell out the prosperity and sovereignty of the US and her people for anything, let alone the JUNK science of man-caused global warming, er, I mean climate change.

liberal American politicians know no party lines

Progressive American politicians know no party lines

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Just words: Conversation with a “conservative”

Posted by americana83 on September 26, 2009

I got the opportunity today to go to a local tea party, the “Common Sense Tea Party” in Kenton Ohio. I got to talking to a man who described himself as a conservative. I previously overheard him complaining about the tea party. He was complaining about Bush, and I did agree with him, that Bush had made some gross overspending and wasn’t really a fiscal conservative. He continued to complain about why all this protesting was going on now. I made the mistake of mentioning ACORN, and he launched into a diatribe about how insignificant ACORN was up for billions of dollars of stimulus money, which he refused to believe. He then redirected the conversation to Haliburton and Cheney’s “assassin squad” and accused me of supporting torture. I said sarcastically, “sure” and then when on to say that no right-thinking person embraces torture. (The Iranians and Al Quaeda and other must have been rolling on the floor laughing when the “torture memos” were released and circulated by the ACLU).

I then asked him what he meant when he said he was “conservative,” and what beliefs he had (I suggested a few: low tax, smaller government, pro-life, etc). His only response was that he believed “everything should be made to be recycled.” I said, oh, you mean conservationism, and said that I agreed that recycling is good. So not getting anywhere beyond that, I asked him, well, what politicians in Washington are most in line with your views. He said, “Al Franken.”

Some other beliefs proudly proclaimed by this “conservative”

  • Obama should thrust through healthcare
  • “public ownership” of 40% GM is not nationalization.
  • Cuba has the world’s best healthcare system. QUOTE: “there’s a doctor on every corner”
  • “There’s no Acorn in this town” I said: Good. He said, “There should be.”
  • “Don’t you want poor people to have housing loans” Another quote defending ACORN, as if the destruction of ACORN would be the end of care and provision for the poor. (If we need a corrupt criminal enterprise to take care of the poor we’re in bad shape.. HELLO CHURCH, that’s our job)
  • All the people in the 9/12 rally were “stupid”

He was only here because there had been a statement released that people would be allowed to address the crowd. He left shortly after they called anyone who had emailed them to get ready to speak.

It is important that we not be deceptive when we use words. This man called himself a conservative and claimed to be fed up with both parties, yet was constantly touting Obama’s agenda, and pushing him to move faster and go farther. He slammed the participants and adamantly defended ACORN, and its lawsuit against the young couple that has almost single-handedly brought to light their whole criminal enterprise.

Whatever your values are, whatever beliefs you hold, always be open and honest, and strive to use truthful language. Deceptive language only causes confusion and loss of credibility. One other thing I  learned quite a while back is that labels are inadequate. McCain was called “right wing” and “conservative” but in reality he was neither of those things: he was a centrist, not subscribing to many of the tenants of American conservatism (small government, global warming is a hoax, low taxes, gun rights, free speech- see the McCain-Feingold Act).

Anyone can use a label. Before you accept it at face value, dig deeper.

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
(2 Timothy 2:15-16)

Posted in communism, deception, Election 2008, news, Ohio, politics, social spending, taxes, Travel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers