Michael Wolfe

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

Posts Tagged ‘liberal’

« Previous Entries

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 »

Ann Coulter’s Downward Spiral

Posted by americana83 on November 17, 2011

“Its a slow fade, when you give yourself away. Its a slow fade when black and white have turned to grey…” – Casting Crowns.

It seems the downward spiral that started with Ms Coulter’s acceptance of GOProud to her embrace of it as their spokes queen has finally come full circle. Now, abandoning all pretense of fiscal conservatism, Ann has decided to jump the gun and throw her diminishing conservative capital behind the most liberal of the Republican candidates: Mitt Romney. This isn’t a post primary call for unity around whatever candidate is selected, this is a call to embrace the liberal IN THE PRIMARY! The who implemented ObamaCare before we knew of ObamaCare, the guy who implemented gay marriage in Mass by executive fiat, the guy who believes in global warming, the guy who petitioned Ted Kennedy for federal money for his state-run government mandated healthcare. The guy who shed his pro-abortion, gay marriage record for some shiny new election season campaign rhetoric about being “pro-life” and marriage. Point blank, the guy doesn’t even qualify for a fiscal conservative.

Ann concludes her embrace of Romney by basically telling us we shouldn’t bother vetting candidates, or revealing the unsavory liberal things we find:

“Instead of sitting on our thumbs…conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama. We’ll attack him when he’s president.”   It’s fun to be a purist, but let’s put that on hold until Obama and his abominable health care plan are gone, please. “

Anyone who is a geniune conservative, or I should say, anyone who learned a lesson from the 2008 election, should support VET VET VETTING these candidates. John McCain was the “electible” candidate in 2008. Where did that get us?  Keep us in line Ann!

A summary of Ann’s points for Romney (With my counterpoints, sorry Ann!) are:

  1. He can “trick liberals into voting for him.” Duh! Obviously if you are running ON a liberal platform, you will attract liberal votes. It wasn’t a trick. It was called a liberal record. Ted Kennedy certainly approved.
  2. He came close to beating Ted Kennedy. So what? Ann, he appealed to Ted to get government money to fund his ObamneyCare! Ted accepted! Remember the DeDe Scozzafova Newt endorsed? Yeah, that’s the kind of republican Mitt Romney is.
    Where was Romney when he came “close to beating” Ted?
    Here’s a brief reviewof Romney’s public record on gay rights in his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy.

    • Supports federal legislation to prohibit discrimination in the workplace against homosexuals.
    • Supports President Clinton’s “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.
    • Says homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts.
    • Endorsed by the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans. – ontheissues.org
  3. He’s “not part of the washington establishment.” So what! Need I remind you, Ann, that Obama was not “part of the washington establishment” either!
  4. He can talk? Again, so what? He can talk so well he can do it out of both sides of his mouth! Just like Obama!
  5. Yes Ann, Federalism gives us the opportunity to see what a would be president will try to do with his executive power in a more unfettered fashion. Romney chose to empore the executive branch, fiat gay marriage and signing health care mandates. Its called abuse of privilege, and we should not trust him at the federal level.
  6. Who cares if the heritage foundation supported mandates at that time? That doesn’t make it a good thing.
  7. You’re right Ann, he probably will try to “repeal” ObamaCare. I mean, he is really good at talking, and he never ever talks out of both sides of his mouth. You can trust him. 16 months of smooth conservative rhetoric means he has abandoned a lifetime of liberal progressivism. But remember, its a “repeal and replace.” It certainly won’t be a full repeal, and it will involve big government “solutions” and intrusions. That is, if a crises doesn’t arise and call DC’s attention to something else long enough to forget about ObamneyCare. Remember, Mitt doesn’t oppose ObamaCare on PRINCIPLE, he opposes it for political expediency. It he opposed it in principle, he NEVER would have signed it into law in Mass. Remember, when he was “tricking” progressives into voting for him! Come on Ann, what has happened to you?

Ann, I can forgive you for being so infatuated with Chris Christie. I mean, at least he was a loud and proud geniune conservative on one important issue, and most serious conservatives applauded his handling of that matter. But I cannot forgive you for trying to delude people into dispensing with vetting candidates and embrace a candidate who has spend most of his political career as a gay affirming-global warming-gun hating, healthcare-mandating progressive. You have done all of conservatism a huge disservice with your “cease and desist” order on vetting Romney.

Here’s what I say Ann: Mitt Romney is a Dede Scozzafava Republican

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 »

Social(Ist) InSecurity: A “reinterpretation” of Mary Jo Kilroy’s Huffington Post Article.

Posted by americana83 on August 18, 2010

Take a look at Kilroy’s article here: SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-mary-jo-kilroy/social-security-doublespe_b_685160.html

Social Security is an extra tax that will not provide any benefit for millions of Americans being forced into the Ponzai scheme too late. It is one of Washington’s sneakiest wealth grabbing achievements, this promise from one generation of greedy power grabbing politicians to the next that we will provide slush funds without accountability to those they perceive as being below them. Last week we mourned Social Security’s 75th year of sucking wealth out of the economy, and in commemoration I write this parody of Mary Jo Kilroy’s Huffington Post article, the one where she brags about the so called Medicare Pledge. In doing this, I committed to oppose all efforts to expand government redistribution or Ponzai schemes that would divert additional funds of private individuals to bureaucrats, or curtail constitutional freedoms– a promise I do not make lightly.

The day after Kilroy patted her ego, her opponent, non-communist Steve Stivers, unfortunately announced that he also opposes privatizing Social Security, not to mention phasing it out! You know, it would be great would commit to doing either thing which would return either total or partial control of our money back to us. Mary Jo Kilroy loves political doublespeak — saying one thing to the public and doing whatever you please because  you don’t think anyone else’s views matter because you’ve earned the right to ignore the Constitution and violate your oath of office, haven’t you Kilroy?

When you see Steve Stivers tell him to take an solid stand on privatizing (making it into private traceable retirement accounts) and/or eventually phasing out Social Security.

The truth is, Kilroy’s campaign is being bankrolled by those with ideologies that have waged a hundred year crusade to subvert individual freedom and limited government: the progressives and socialists — which as far as handing out bailouts and expanding government power “walk hand-in-hand with the worst aspects of the Bush Administration” — and Obama’s . Progressives are working overtime to make sure that their friend Kilroy goes to Washington, and we all know that when it’s time to vote, they’re going to call in their favors if their darling progressive of the 15th district ever hints that she is actually listening to the people instead of Obama and Marx and Engels.

Mary Jo Kilroy knows the rules of this game. She’s been playing it for 2 years. But this year these ties aren’t going to go unnoticed — and we won’t let him get away with trading away our Constitutional freedoms in dimly-lit rooms.

There is a way for Steve to show Mary Jo Kilroy that he doesn’t want to win and help Kilroy provide the the Socialists “Security” for their ” Ponzai Scheme benefits. If he really doesn’t want to win, as he says he does, he needs return all his donations so he can’t win because Kilroy hates the “right-wing special interests”  that are threatening our bureaucrats lust for power. Otherwise, he is seriously going to bury Mary Jo Kilroy. She better call George Soros…

You can join us in nullifying the health insurance mandate and the fees cherished by Mary Jo Kilroy and Obama, by clicking here.

Thanks for your support!

Replace Mary Jo Kilroy
(Not Representing Ohio’s 15th Congressional District)

Your “Representative” is on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MaryjoKilroy

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

“Meet the Candidates” Factcheck: Ohio15th.blogspot.com

Posted by americana83 on March 17, 2010

Just today ohio6win stumbled across the article I wrote about the recent Meet the Candidates Night. I say stumbled across because she apparently did not even bother to read the article in her haste to decry both Stivers and myself and got some pretty basic facts wrong.

http://ohio15th.blogspot.com/

* While Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy was in Washington, DC, there were some people that showed up at her local office with signs. A majority of the demonstrators supported health care reform, while the other side could be characterized as the pro-higher insurance premium/status quo group. I know that those that who were in favor of health care reform were actual supporters of Kilroy’s. Those on the pro-higher insurance premiums, tea baggers, and pro-GOP, looked like they all escaped out of the Franklin Co. GOP office or the local country club. The anti-health care reform group stance can be summed up by the comment made by a woman from the affluent suburb of Upper Arlington (Dispatch):

Perhaps ohio6win should have looked at the facts before condemning this group as “escaping out of the Franklin Co. GOP office. Some of these same people were recently protesting in front of the GOP’s building in Columbus over recent episodes involving GOP slight of hand to displace tea party candidates and pave the way for establishment cronies to return to office. In fact, this author was among them.

And then, we have the following error filled assumptions that show the ohio15th author (ohio6win) didn’t even read my article about the “Meet the candidates” night.

****** Republican candidate for Congress, Steve Stivers, a former lobbyist, attended a recent “meet the candidates” forum sponsored by an extreme right winger, Michael Wolfe. Here are some excerpts from Wolfe’s Platform page:

First, the Candidate’s night was hosted by the The Hilliard/Galloway and Union County 9/12 Projects. While I was at the event, it does not automatically mean that both Stivers and I harmonize on ideology. In fact, there are some who question how committed Stivers is to conservative and constitutional principles, including this author.

“Hate speech” laws criminalize religious speech, and penalize those who hold traditional moral values.

(Is Stivers against laws that protect various minorities?)

This tactic involves deceit and bypasses the issue altogether. How ohio6win  jumps from “traditional moral values” to minorities is a mystery, since the focus is clearly on sexuality, and they have ignored this author’s many articles condemning racism, but then progressives never let facts get in the way of a good tirade. And here it continues:

“Hate speech” laws silence those who would speak out against certain sexual practices for health concerns.
(Does Stivers agree with this????)

Does ohio6win believe that ALL sexual behaviors and practices should NEVER be questioned? I would make the assumption that Stivers would disagree with my assertions on this matter, given his ambiguities on the question asked at the candidates’ night on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

No government health-care.

(Does Stivers support Wolfe’s proposal to end Medicare, the SCHIP health care for children, and Medicaid?)

Does ohio6win know that these programs are unsustainable and bankrupt, and that I have no issue with individual states passing whatever programs they will, or that I support private charities that care for the poor and homeless and needy.

Despite these bizarre statements form Michael Wolfe, some of us wonder if Stivers himself believes in Wolfe’s “platform.” Has Stivers gone over to the far right extremists side of the political landscape? You can see more information on Stivers here. By the way, check out the pictures here and you’ll wonder if Wolfe and Stivers have gone off the deep end. Why did Stivers align himself with this obvious extremist?posted by ohio06win at 8:20 AM

First, Stivers has not aligned himself with this author, nor has he endorsed my platform. Obvious extremist? That I can live with. I am not ashamed of what I stand for, nor am I afraid to call for the phasing out of bankrupt, unconstitutional programs best left to private charities and to the individual states as their constitutions allow. Oh, and please do check out the pictures. A lot of hard work went into them, and I encourage anyone who wants to use them at their next tea party or rally, feel free. I stand behind the contents and message of each of these posters, and am not afraid to say that President Barack Obama is Communist/Socialist. Check out the exert from his book Dreams from my father about 3/4 of the way down this article. Also this article about Obama’s home church of 20 plus years. Also, check out WorldNetDaily’s article about Obama’s new spiritual mentor. And how about my article about the praise the Communist Party, USA has lavished upon Obama and his agenda.

Bizarre? OK, but remember, this is coming from a person who believes that the wives of politicians should not be allowed to exercise their 1st amendment rights in a March 15th post on her sister blog, and who substitutes crude names and distortions for facts and figures. As bizarre as my beliefs may seem to one who is firmly entrenched in the progressive mentality, it is not bizarre to those who uphold the concept of a Constitutional republic based on the beliefs and values that made this nation what she is today. Perhaps I should be flattered. I’ve joined the ranks of people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and others who have been lied about and called names.

As for a post that is currently only showing up on google search from her stubborn liberal blog about “smart people,” it just happens that she admits that everyone she agrees with is smart, as are those who support them, whereas, all of her opponents are stupid, as are those who support them. As a college graduate, I am proud to say by God’s grace I saw through the fog that surrounded Obama. However, a college degree does not mean one is any more capable of picking good candidates, and her personal disdain for those who disagree with her is very evident in the tone of this and many of her other articles. I have never studied a candidate more thoroughly, and have decided to never support another candidate merely because they are “the lesser of two evils.” As for the article she quotes approvingly about what kind of “conservatism” is respectable, I will not take my advice from what “acceptable conservatism is from someone who doesn’t believe the wives of judges deserve constitutional rights. I’ll bet the “Republicans” in this list would also earn her unwavering support for their commitment to abandoning the precepts of conservatism to embrace the change no conservative could be honest with themselves and believe in… As for the Buckley-type “conservatism” she apparently approves of, check this article out.

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 »

“Spreading the wealth around”

Posted by americana83 on October 7, 2009

Yesterday, Slate published an article titled “Health Reform Winners and Losers: How the House bill redistributes money to the middle class.” Among the statements they made, this one is both telling and alarming:

But in general, health reform has a redistributive impact. Democrats hesitate to talk about this for fear of sounding like socialists. Republicans hesitate to talk about it for fear of sounding like plutocrats. But let’s face it: Redistributing income in one form or another is a very large part of what government does. Arguing about whether it should be done is like arguing about whether the sky should be blue. The more urgent question is how it is done.

What the article fails to mention, is that wealth redistribution was never the intended purpose of the Constitutional Republic, and the sweeping conclusion that doing so is as proper as calling the sky being blue is absurd. The progressive income tax or the “success tax” is what really began this redistributive binge. Now the government wants to reach deeper into people’s pockets. 209408.9

Let me ask this: What right do I have to someone else’s money? They admit it will take a “mere” 20,000 from someone earning 358,000 (this is of course in addition to the 33 percent already being taken by federal taxes, and not including social security or state or local taxes).  Gross wages are a meaningless figure, because no one sees the “gross” of their income. The government is already taking $103283 from John Bourgeoisie, so whats another $20,000 right? If you’re in California and making a mere 47,000 or more, deduct an additional 9.3 percent, or $30990 right off the gross. Social security saps another 6.2 percent, or $6621 of the first 106,800 (and the ceiling keeps going up). Also throw in the 1.45 percent of gross, or $5191 Medicare tax. So this individual’s gross income of 358,000 for practical purposes becomes 211915* before taking out the ObamaCare tax of 20,000, which drops the figure to $191915. This would mean that, assuming the costs don’t skyrocket like most government programs, the government would be taking just over 45.1% of their gross income. (This does not even factor in sales taxes or gas taxes). So the average person who makes 358,000 is already contributing almost 40**% of their gross income (again, not factoring sales taxes or gasoline taxes) to the state and federal governments. It also does not include the difficult to estimate invisible tax of inflationary deficit spending.

How much wealth redistribution is enough? The Bible says, Thou shalt not steal, and when the little man gets shafted, we  rightfully demand justice be done. But, thanks to characters like Robin Hood, and the corrupt king he stole from, theft from the rich is seen in some circles as “getting what they deserve.” And when it is legally mandated by the government, it is seen as perfectly respectable. And as the government expands more and more into our personal lives and the private sector, we are only going to see the percentages skyrocket, and it won’t be just the “upper crust” that feels it. Imaging adding about another 15-17% for “cap-and-trade,” plus the ripple effect price increases all across the economy, or at least anything produced that required electricity somewhere in the production cycle.

Charity, and assisting those in need, is a call to Christians, not to the government, or via extortion. In deed, the government programs often entrap people in serf style subsistence living, with no incentive to improve themselves or get off the government life support. This gives these impoverished voters incentives (bribes?) to vote in the politicians that promise to keep giving them stuff for “nothing.”

So, a healthcare tax will greatly expand the socialist (yes, Slate I said it) redistribution our government engages in. Yes, it will decrease the number of doctors and hospitals available. Next, the government will have to subsidize doctor school and possibly coerce people into choosing the medical profession. It is in part the abysmal reimbursements current government programs pay to medical professionals that the cost for John Doe’s medical treatment is so high.

Mr Obama, Slate, Pelosi: how much wealth redistribution is enough? More importantly, how do you justify it constitutionally? He can’t, and his complaints about the “Warner court,” that they continued to interpret the Constitution as the founding fathers intended it as a charter of negatives that the government cannot do to you, the liberties that cannot be taken away by the government only shows that he has an utter contempt for the document upon which this country was founded, the one that he pledged to “uphold and defend.”

Is it possible then that his taking the oath of office was a commission of perjury in front of the highest court in the United States, since he wants to use the government, either the courts or the legislature to destroy the constitution, fundamentally changing this country in ways that the founders never dreamed of or intended?

Due to graduations within the federal tax scales, the tax amount shown is slightly less than the quoted maximum tax rate

*I did the same calculations with an income of 350,000 and the resulting net income gain from an $8,000 pay increase (358,000) is only $2506.1 (the combined government take on the last 8000 is just over 68.6 percent).

**There are some states that have lower or even no state personal income tax. This also does not include local or municipal or school taxes/levees. Cost of ObamaCare is taken from the Slate article

California tax rate was calculated using the state’s tax calculator.

The federal tax rate was calculated using the max-pedia tax calculator

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 »

Do ends really justify means?

Posted by americana83 on August 29, 2009

This question has been debated for ages. Similar questions have also been asked:

Do we join with anyone that supports one of our beliefs, even if they trample on one or more of our others?

Does the fact that a person is right on one topic mean we should embrace them?

Unfortunately, these questions are not asked enough and the results can ruin a reputation. I’d like to use one example, the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC.org). They totally undermine all the talk about individualism and constitutional rights by embracing racism, a sinful and collectivist ideology.

Consider these bible verses carefully:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

Organizations and people which you decide to join or publicly embrace (one could say behind the scenes as well, since these things have a way of coming out) will define you (rightly or wrongly) in the minds of others. The people at large do not have access to the complicated reasoning which allows a person to come to the decision of supporting a morally perverse individual or organization for the sole purpose of advancing one common goal.

This is also why you should study and learn more about groups or organizations you wish to affiliate yourself with. For example, some people embrace animal rights organizations like PeTA without realizing that underneath the talk of humane treatment of animals, that the organization espouses the ultimate extinction of all domesticated animals and the abolition of any and all forms of animal use (whether for fur or pets, or milk or eggs or any other conceivable purpose) while at the same time exploiting beautiful women in the same ways they claim to be protesting against.

The same is true of politicians and religious groups and charities. Make sure you know who you are donating to or otherwise supporting. I just recently got a letter from a group that claimed to be opposed to the bailouts and big government, but a little bit of research showed that it was in reality a far leftist group that sometimes operates in conjunction with the ACLU (actually the logo they used of liberty’s head peeking up reminded a lot of the ACLU’s logo).

Know who your supporting. There are few things as easily destroyed as a reputation or a testimony. Make sure know whatever organization or politician or group you choose to embrace. A split decision made on emotion in ignorance can end up undermining your core values and advancing causes which are the opposite of what you believe.

So do ends justify means? Perhaps in the eyes of the world. Karl Marx, Mao, Hitler, and their modern counterparts all believe solidly in the doctrine of ends justifying means. But for the Christian, we should not compromise or sell out our principles or beliefs just to gain ground on one front, because whatever we gain (or likely more than that) will be lost on another front.

Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
(Ephesians 6:11-12)

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

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers