I recently got this letter from a liberal who was invited to listen to the show based on their belonging to a Glenn Beck group. Below you can read my response to them.
---
....I am only a fan of Glenn's humor; I am a LOUD and proud liberal atheist who DESPISES the corruption, bigotry, and blatant STUPIDITY the conservative party has become. I look at Glenn as the imbecile cousin few in the family talk about....but when they do, they laugh cruelly at his obvious mental shortcomings. Yes, he IS funny, but I don't buy into his maniacal idiocy that has become congruent with conservative morons (namely, the vast majority of his listeners). I prefer to think for myself.
---
That’s cool, we don't care if you look at us as stupid rednecks or conservative intellectuals, we just want you to listen and then, as you put it, "think for yourself".
One thing that I would point out is that Liberals have become very adept at calling conservatives stupid with out ever really explaining what they mean. That of course, is one of Saul Alinsky’s tactics that he famously taught in his "Rules for Radicals." It takes a little more to convince me of something then to just say, "Stupid", "ignorant"
"bigot", etc.
For example, what corruption? Recently we have seen all democrat scandals except for the one republican in Alaska, who has been disowned by all Republicans. Dems however, have been shown to have been the reason that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went under while Barney Frank (Democrat Congressman) was living with his gay lover, who worked in a high level position for Fanny Mae, and then there was Franklin Rains, the former Freddie Mac president who Barack touted as a financial advisor until it was shown that he profited over 40 million dollars from Freddie Mac while it was cooking the books so that he could make that bonus. Now everything I just stated is fact and apart of the public record, not a conspiracy theory, just reality.
That said, I don't really care that much. Don't get me wrong, I think what they did was horrible and both they as well as anyone who profited should be held accountable, but just because a party has a few or -as is in the case with the dems- a lot of bad apples, that does not mean there ideas are wrong. You have to look beyond the surface to see what is really there. Regardless of what you think about the Republicans, the truth is that Conservatism works. JFK cut taxes -a conservative idea- and it worked by supporting economic growth. LBJ and then Carter raised taxes and we had a horrible recession. Reagan cut them again which started to have an effect near the end of his first term and kept working all the way until 9/11. After which we had a short lived economic setback that was turned about because of George W Bush’s tax cuts and only now are we having problems again because of out of control spending by both parties (not a conservative ideal even if a so called “conservative” played a apart) and now the mortgage crisis caused by the subprime market that was created by democrats in the 70’s and then went out of control in the 90’s when Janet Reno threatened to come after any lending institution that dealt in subprime that seemed to be discriminating, which was defined as, “emphasizing a need for good credit, having to have had a steady job, having to be able to provide a down payment, etc” ALL LIBERAL IDEAS and extremely stupid ideas at that.
I am not forgetting Clinton, but you see Clinton was a moderate who was liberal in the social arena but in fiscal policy he presided down the middle more often then not. He raised taxes, but never too much and he sided with the Congressional Republicans to make big cuts in Welfare which took many people off of the welfare roles and got them back to working. There are many more points I can make, but when you start to realize just how much conservatism works, it is hard to deny it.
The truth is that almost everything in life nudges us towards liberalism from Saturday morning cartoons like "Captain Planet" to the Liberal leaning public school system that teaches children that both Global Warming and Evolution are done deals in the world of science when in fact over 40,000 scientists are on record as having issues with the idea of "man made" climate change and more and more scientists -atheists and theists alike- are sounding alarms about the holes in Darwinian Evolution.
Then there is the Liberal media that votes over 80% democratic and then the plethora of liberal universities around the world. The reality is that to accept liberalism is easy because it is taught everywhere but to stand up and chose conservatism is to “think for yourself".
Damon Rexroad
The Conservative Fun House
www.ConservativeFunHouse.com
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Smaller Government
I read a blog recently where a young republican asked a few simple questions. Not because he did not know the answer but because he was putting himself in the shoes of the average voter looking in and trying to figure out what certain conservative talking point really mean. Here where those questions: ( or you can read his entire blog by going to: http://www.yrnetwork.com/blogs/941/Dan-Skinner.aspx )
- What does the GOP mean by "smaller government"?
- What is the GOP's plan to make government smaller?
- What does the GOP mean by "less taxes"?
- What is the GOP's plan to make taxes smaller?
- What does the GOP mean by "strong defense"?
- What is the GOP's plan to make defense stronger?
Now I am just one person and far from an expert. But as a podcaster and someone who feels the same responsibility to move the party forward that many other conservatives do -especially after the presidential election- I thought I might put my 2 cents in. Now, I think it would be rather long and boring for me to try and discuss every question, so I will just start with the first one and move on to others in the future.
- What does the GOP mean by "smaller government"?
- What is the GOP's plan to make government smaller?
As some of you already know, our Founding Fathers Hamilton and Jefferson did not get along very well. They fought over many things, one of the biggest being the role, size and reach of the federal government. One case in point was what to do with the debt raised by the individual states during the revolution. Hamilton was in favor of the federal government buying up the debt and being the banker for the states. Jefferson was against it because he knew, as Hamilton would himself reveal, the more the federal government “helped” its individual states and citizens, the more power it would then be able to assert over them, and this is just as true today as it was then.
Conservatives want the government smaller for a number of reasons but one of the primary is due to the understanding that the more responsibility the government has the more power it has, where as the more responsibility the states and citizens give up the less power they have and vice versa. We believe that while people in the government may have good motivations, such as a desire help our fellow man, the truth is that I am able to help my neighbor on an individual basis much better then Uncle Sam could, who does not even know my neighbor. And the same can be said for the local charities being able to help more effectively and fruitfully then the Fed.
The brings me to the second reason we want smaller government: Because government programs almost never work effectively, waste too much money and once people get use to them, we almost never end them and when they don’t work, we only expand them thinking more, not less government is the answer.
Why aren’t they effective? Many reasons, but mostly because really large entities have trouble maintaining the smaller, more personal issues because they are to big to make individual decisions efficiently and instead make sweeping policies “meant” to favor the most people possible leaving the worker ants on the ground level with little to know ability to go around said policies when they don’t make sense or are not effective.
One example would be the effectiveness of the United Way after Katrina versus that of the Salvation Army, versus the local church congregations that brought in volunteers from other local churches around the nation. The United Way –a great and well meaning organization- was to big to be flexible on the front lines and with the fear of many people that some may tried to defraud the organization with faulty claims, thus stealing from the millions that gave money to the United Way, they were forced to put in place polices meant to help as many as possible but at the same time insure that money was not misused. This added many delays to the process and many hurricane survivors had to wait, fill out papers, wait, interview with United Way staff, wait and then wait some more just to get money that was in some cases too much and in others not enough. They meant well but the organization was just too big to do things any different.
Compare that to the Salvation Army which got glowing reports on how quickly and effectively they were able to help. This was because, being a smaller organization, they were able to move money quicker and give more decision making authority to those on the front lines, who could see and access the need for themselves. Then compare that to the volunteers working through the local churches that really knew the area and could get aid, man power and supplies where is was really needed, and get there before the National Guard had even had a chance to make it in. Again none of these organizations cared more of less then another, some where just smaller and more agile then others and therefore more effective on a personal level, which is where it really counts. As an aside it is also important to point out that a bigger percentage of every dollar given to the Salvation Army went to help an actual person then that given to the United Way, just because the United Way has so much more overhead, red tape and personnel.
Another example would be one I heard from a national talk host, when he talked about working for The California Government Housing Office in his youth and watching them give $5,000 dollar checks to people that had just received new apartments because the “stats” showed that on average that was how much it cost to buy all new furniture and appliances for a residence, keep in mind that was over 20 years ago which would make that like giving 7,500 to 10,000 to someone now.
That makes no sense, we all know that the majority of individuals are not going to need that much money but because the government can not discriminate, they were forced to give an equal amount to everyone, which meant it had to be set high enough to help as many as possible. How many millions where and still are wasted in this manner? If my neighbor has a fire and needs clothes, food, or appliances, I can help him with exactly that. And while it is possible I would give him more then he needed out of the Christian Charity in my own heart, it would not be such an excessive amount that they could not use it all, and just wasted the rest. Think about it, if a friends refrigerator went out and all there food went to waste, you might help them by feeding them for a couple of nights, maybe even buy groceries for a day or a week but would you just go and give them enough money to buy groceries for a whole year when they only need a little bit of temporary help until the new fridge arrived? This is sadly the way the Federal “assistance” programs tend to operate.
This same idea applies to other services the Fed oversees that deal with a great number of individuals, like public schools. They are set up to progress the greatest number of students along the path of knowledge but the size, scope and organizational make up make it very un-practical. That’s not to say the children are not learning but many are not reaching their full potential because the PC nature of the system makes it hard to overly focus on the need of one but instead on the need of the whole. Also, the teachers unions and political agenda of many in the system keep it from being as fruitful of an environment as it should be. Ask you selves this, why do private schools and charters schools graduate more college bound students and more students period per capita then public schools, when on average the have less resources to work with and the teachers make less money? Because a private school has a greater ability to make decisions that best affect the schools and it is students down to an individual level then does their public counterparts.
Now, the government is usually decent at operations with a singular focus, like going to the moon, because many are working towards one goal instead of millions of individual goals, but that topic is for another day.
So in summation, as to the first part of the question, (What does the GOP mean by "smaller government")?: Smaller government to me means a government that is less involved in the localized and individual aspects or our lives. It means a government that leaves decisions up to those most able to make and act on them, like, you, me, the local churches, charities, business and even to local government. It means a government that only offers individual aid & assistance services as a last resort and not a way of life. It means a government that understands that the people usually make better decisions for themselves on their own, with out the Fed, and when “one” person or a small group of persons does something unwise, the last thing we need to is sweeping laws and new oversized organizations that end up –and usually adversely- affecting us all and slicing away at our personal liberties. It means a government that understands that it’s primary purpose is to provide a safe and free environment in which we can operate and strive to achieve our dreams; a goal achieved by a good police force to protect us from the “bad apples”, a strong military to protect us from foreign aggression, an efficient national guard to help in times of disaster and only the most necessary and basic services and regulations, so that our food and water is safe, businesses act with a modicum of respect and decency towards the workers and other businesses so that there is confidence in the system, but for the most part a government stays out of our lives. It means a government that only taxes what it needs to run these “basic” operations and lets us keep as much of our own money as possible, giving us the incentive to use that money towards greater dreams, knowing that while some may fail, many will achieve great heights, only making the country better for everyone.
So, how do we make it happen? We do it though education and patience. Rome was not built in a day and we need to realize that while many would love to cut every government assistance program there is, and lower income taxes to 10% or less right away, we have to understand that most people would not be ready for it. When the USSR fell and moved to a capitalist system over night the people were not ready and to this day many that had made it to adulthood under the Soviet system still have not learned how to take care of themselves, forcing many into an extreme poverty that we in the US can not even begin relate to. It’s true that our (the USA’s) move would not be as drastic since we have yet to become a totally socialist system, yet still there would be many that would be unprepared to live under a freer system with a great deal more personal responsibility. We would have to do it in stages, excluding much of the older population who would not have enough time or resources to switch over, all the while educating people on what to expect and why it would be better in the end. Today, most of the former Soviet States are a much better place to live then under the old system, at least for those that have learned to live in a capitalist system but for those that did not, it is hell on earth.
I would suppose that we would have to grand father anyone over the age of 50 so that nothing would change for them. Then for those under 50 we start to slowly take away different fringe aspects of the different assistance programs and then in stages -designed not to shock the system- we eventually shrink those programs to emergency and short term assistance only, all the while cutting taxes in keeping up with what we would no longer need for programs that no longer exist. This would make up for the federal assistance that would now not be available by allowing people to keep more of their own money which would mean more funds available for them to give to local charities that would be better equipped to help those in need. Now cutting taxes would not be an immediate help for those on assistance and/or do not make enough to currently pay taxes but it would put more money in the system, which coupled with what would now be a much less restrictive economic environment, would allow for more business to be created as well as more business to return their operations to the US, in effect creating more jobs and more opportunity for everyone.
Certain things would have to be done quickly, like ripping of a Band-Aid, but most could be done as listed above, and not just with assistance programs but with all ineffective and costly programs overseen and run by the Federal Government.
- What does the GOP mean by "smaller government"?
- What is the GOP's plan to make government smaller?
- What does the GOP mean by "less taxes"?
- What is the GOP's plan to make taxes smaller?
- What does the GOP mean by "strong defense"?
- What is the GOP's plan to make defense stronger?
Now I am just one person and far from an expert. But as a podcaster and someone who feels the same responsibility to move the party forward that many other conservatives do -especially after the presidential election- I thought I might put my 2 cents in. Now, I think it would be rather long and boring for me to try and discuss every question, so I will just start with the first one and move on to others in the future.
- What does the GOP mean by "smaller government"?
- What is the GOP's plan to make government smaller?
As some of you already know, our Founding Fathers Hamilton and Jefferson did not get along very well. They fought over many things, one of the biggest being the role, size and reach of the federal government. One case in point was what to do with the debt raised by the individual states during the revolution. Hamilton was in favor of the federal government buying up the debt and being the banker for the states. Jefferson was against it because he knew, as Hamilton would himself reveal, the more the federal government “helped” its individual states and citizens, the more power it would then be able to assert over them, and this is just as true today as it was then.
Conservatives want the government smaller for a number of reasons but one of the primary is due to the understanding that the more responsibility the government has the more power it has, where as the more responsibility the states and citizens give up the less power they have and vice versa. We believe that while people in the government may have good motivations, such as a desire help our fellow man, the truth is that I am able to help my neighbor on an individual basis much better then Uncle Sam could, who does not even know my neighbor. And the same can be said for the local charities being able to help more effectively and fruitfully then the Fed.
The brings me to the second reason we want smaller government: Because government programs almost never work effectively, waste too much money and once people get use to them, we almost never end them and when they don’t work, we only expand them thinking more, not less government is the answer.
Why aren’t they effective? Many reasons, but mostly because really large entities have trouble maintaining the smaller, more personal issues because they are to big to make individual decisions efficiently and instead make sweeping policies “meant” to favor the most people possible leaving the worker ants on the ground level with little to know ability to go around said policies when they don’t make sense or are not effective.
One example would be the effectiveness of the United Way after Katrina versus that of the Salvation Army, versus the local church congregations that brought in volunteers from other local churches around the nation. The United Way –a great and well meaning organization- was to big to be flexible on the front lines and with the fear of many people that some may tried to defraud the organization with faulty claims, thus stealing from the millions that gave money to the United Way, they were forced to put in place polices meant to help as many as possible but at the same time insure that money was not misused. This added many delays to the process and many hurricane survivors had to wait, fill out papers, wait, interview with United Way staff, wait and then wait some more just to get money that was in some cases too much and in others not enough. They meant well but the organization was just too big to do things any different.
Compare that to the Salvation Army which got glowing reports on how quickly and effectively they were able to help. This was because, being a smaller organization, they were able to move money quicker and give more decision making authority to those on the front lines, who could see and access the need for themselves. Then compare that to the volunteers working through the local churches that really knew the area and could get aid, man power and supplies where is was really needed, and get there before the National Guard had even had a chance to make it in. Again none of these organizations cared more of less then another, some where just smaller and more agile then others and therefore more effective on a personal level, which is where it really counts. As an aside it is also important to point out that a bigger percentage of every dollar given to the Salvation Army went to help an actual person then that given to the United Way, just because the United Way has so much more overhead, red tape and personnel.
Another example would be one I heard from a national talk host, when he talked about working for The California Government Housing Office in his youth and watching them give $5,000 dollar checks to people that had just received new apartments because the “stats” showed that on average that was how much it cost to buy all new furniture and appliances for a residence, keep in mind that was over 20 years ago which would make that like giving 7,500 to 10,000 to someone now.
That makes no sense, we all know that the majority of individuals are not going to need that much money but because the government can not discriminate, they were forced to give an equal amount to everyone, which meant it had to be set high enough to help as many as possible. How many millions where and still are wasted in this manner? If my neighbor has a fire and needs clothes, food, or appliances, I can help him with exactly that. And while it is possible I would give him more then he needed out of the Christian Charity in my own heart, it would not be such an excessive amount that they could not use it all, and just wasted the rest. Think about it, if a friends refrigerator went out and all there food went to waste, you might help them by feeding them for a couple of nights, maybe even buy groceries for a day or a week but would you just go and give them enough money to buy groceries for a whole year when they only need a little bit of temporary help until the new fridge arrived? This is sadly the way the Federal “assistance” programs tend to operate.
This same idea applies to other services the Fed oversees that deal with a great number of individuals, like public schools. They are set up to progress the greatest number of students along the path of knowledge but the size, scope and organizational make up make it very un-practical. That’s not to say the children are not learning but many are not reaching their full potential because the PC nature of the system makes it hard to overly focus on the need of one but instead on the need of the whole. Also, the teachers unions and political agenda of many in the system keep it from being as fruitful of an environment as it should be. Ask you selves this, why do private schools and charters schools graduate more college bound students and more students period per capita then public schools, when on average the have less resources to work with and the teachers make less money? Because a private school has a greater ability to make decisions that best affect the schools and it is students down to an individual level then does their public counterparts.
Now, the government is usually decent at operations with a singular focus, like going to the moon, because many are working towards one goal instead of millions of individual goals, but that topic is for another day.
So in summation, as to the first part of the question, (What does the GOP mean by "smaller government")?: Smaller government to me means a government that is less involved in the localized and individual aspects or our lives. It means a government that leaves decisions up to those most able to make and act on them, like, you, me, the local churches, charities, business and even to local government. It means a government that only offers individual aid & assistance services as a last resort and not a way of life. It means a government that understands that the people usually make better decisions for themselves on their own, with out the Fed, and when “one” person or a small group of persons does something unwise, the last thing we need to is sweeping laws and new oversized organizations that end up –and usually adversely- affecting us all and slicing away at our personal liberties. It means a government that understands that it’s primary purpose is to provide a safe and free environment in which we can operate and strive to achieve our dreams; a goal achieved by a good police force to protect us from the “bad apples”, a strong military to protect us from foreign aggression, an efficient national guard to help in times of disaster and only the most necessary and basic services and regulations, so that our food and water is safe, businesses act with a modicum of respect and decency towards the workers and other businesses so that there is confidence in the system, but for the most part a government stays out of our lives. It means a government that only taxes what it needs to run these “basic” operations and lets us keep as much of our own money as possible, giving us the incentive to use that money towards greater dreams, knowing that while some may fail, many will achieve great heights, only making the country better for everyone.
So, how do we make it happen? We do it though education and patience. Rome was not built in a day and we need to realize that while many would love to cut every government assistance program there is, and lower income taxes to 10% or less right away, we have to understand that most people would not be ready for it. When the USSR fell and moved to a capitalist system over night the people were not ready and to this day many that had made it to adulthood under the Soviet system still have not learned how to take care of themselves, forcing many into an extreme poverty that we in the US can not even begin relate to. It’s true that our (the USA’s) move would not be as drastic since we have yet to become a totally socialist system, yet still there would be many that would be unprepared to live under a freer system with a great deal more personal responsibility. We would have to do it in stages, excluding much of the older population who would not have enough time or resources to switch over, all the while educating people on what to expect and why it would be better in the end. Today, most of the former Soviet States are a much better place to live then under the old system, at least for those that have learned to live in a capitalist system but for those that did not, it is hell on earth.
I would suppose that we would have to grand father anyone over the age of 50 so that nothing would change for them. Then for those under 50 we start to slowly take away different fringe aspects of the different assistance programs and then in stages -designed not to shock the system- we eventually shrink those programs to emergency and short term assistance only, all the while cutting taxes in keeping up with what we would no longer need for programs that no longer exist. This would make up for the federal assistance that would now not be available by allowing people to keep more of their own money which would mean more funds available for them to give to local charities that would be better equipped to help those in need. Now cutting taxes would not be an immediate help for those on assistance and/or do not make enough to currently pay taxes but it would put more money in the system, which coupled with what would now be a much less restrictive economic environment, would allow for more business to be created as well as more business to return their operations to the US, in effect creating more jobs and more opportunity for everyone.
Certain things would have to be done quickly, like ripping of a Band-Aid, but most could be done as listed above, and not just with assistance programs but with all ineffective and costly programs overseen and run by the Federal Government.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Liberals LOVE abortion
below you will see a letter a listener sent me in response to a recent podcast as well as my reply back.
if liberals love abortion and coservatives hate it..then why is it still legal, and why wasnt it even a factor in this past election? i will tell you why...because it is only brought up to get votes....no one...i dont think is for abortion...what most liberals feels is that no man from d.c. is going to tell any woman what to do with their body.
dont get me wrong...i am not pro abortion..i am pro choice though and i feel it is a neccasary evil we must endure...unfortunately people use it as a form of birth control which is just very sad to me. and if it wasnt legal do you honestly believe that it wouldnt happen?
---
Dear Listener,
You can be a pro-choice republican and run for president before you can be a pro-life democrat and run because while it is a huge issue to us (conservatives) it is even a bigger issue to the liberals. The point is that they -as a collective- are obsessively pro-abortion. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and many more, use to be pro-life but had to change views to run for higher office because they knew they stood no chance if they did not.
Reagan and Bush Sr. both named Justices to the Supreme Court that have been less then firm in their pro-life stances but name me one Democrat president since LBJ that has appointed a justice who was even questionable in the area of roe-v-wade. Democrats as a party are obsessed with it.
In episode 23, James makes the point that before the civil war there was a group of people that also called them selves pro-choice, they were for having the choice to own a slave or not. They made arguments like, "no one 'likes' slavery and we should all push to have less of it but who are we to tell those in the south what they can not do with their own money?” Now, liberals will argue that there is a difference between that and this but really there is no difference. The white southerners did not view blacks as human and neither do the pro-choicers view un-born children as human. It is modern day bigotry and a "legal" holocaust.
It is funny to me that we even argue as to whether or not the un-born can be called human or even life. It is life, as all cellular organisms have life (from ticks to trees) and since it's DNA is human, it must be valued the same as any human. The argument that its intrinsic value is diminished because it could not survive on it's own is laughable because no child under the age of 3 or even 4 could survive with out help, so why is a new mother not given a grace period, and if they feel any time up to or before the 2nd birthday of their child that they can not handle the responsibility then they can have the child put down like any animal.
That probably seems horrific, but you either see human life as valuable or you do not; there is no middle ground. To say you are not for it but can’t be against it, for what ever reason, is both sickening and weak. A life is a life is a life. I am not Mother Nature and did not design the universe so that women would give birth and not men, and I am not going to apologize for it either.
Sex may feel good but its primary function is to produce offspring. So when that happens, it was not a "mistake" it was very much intentional, because that is what sex is intended to do. The fact that it feels good is only Gods (or evolutions) way of insuring we as free thinking beings would still do it. If sex were a neutral or unpleasant experience then we would rarely, if ever, partake because there would be much more thinking and planning and questioning involved and the human race would die out. Passion is an important part of our existence as a species and should not used as an excuse to then kill our own. "It was the heat of the moment, I did not mean for this to happed." maybe so but your body sure meant for it to happen, it's what it is made to do.
As to your final question... I don't care that people would sill try to have abortions even if it were illegal. Robbery, murder, and rape still happen even though it is illegal, so why then don’t we make it legal? Because, if we did it would happen a great deal more because there would be no negative consequences. We never make or don't make laws based on whether or not it will end an entire negative action. We make law so that we can - to the best of our ability - protect society; in this case, to protect the un-born.
Finally, there is no difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice, just as there was no difference prior to the civil war between pro-slavery and pro-choice. To think so is to lie to your self.
if liberals love abortion and coservatives hate it..then why is it still legal, and why wasnt it even a factor in this past election? i will tell you why...because it is only brought up to get votes....no one...i dont think is for abortion...what most liberals feels is that no man from d.c. is going to tell any woman what to do with their body.
dont get me wrong...i am not pro abortion..i am pro choice though and i feel it is a neccasary evil we must endure...unfortunately people use it as a form of birth control which is just very sad to me. and if it wasnt legal do you honestly believe that it wouldnt happen?
---
Dear Listener,
You can be a pro-choice republican and run for president before you can be a pro-life democrat and run because while it is a huge issue to us (conservatives) it is even a bigger issue to the liberals. The point is that they -as a collective- are obsessively pro-abortion. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and many more, use to be pro-life but had to change views to run for higher office because they knew they stood no chance if they did not.
Reagan and Bush Sr. both named Justices to the Supreme Court that have been less then firm in their pro-life stances but name me one Democrat president since LBJ that has appointed a justice who was even questionable in the area of roe-v-wade. Democrats as a party are obsessed with it.
In episode 23, James makes the point that before the civil war there was a group of people that also called them selves pro-choice, they were for having the choice to own a slave or not. They made arguments like, "no one 'likes' slavery and we should all push to have less of it but who are we to tell those in the south what they can not do with their own money?” Now, liberals will argue that there is a difference between that and this but really there is no difference. The white southerners did not view blacks as human and neither do the pro-choicers view un-born children as human. It is modern day bigotry and a "legal" holocaust.
It is funny to me that we even argue as to whether or not the un-born can be called human or even life. It is life, as all cellular organisms have life (from ticks to trees) and since it's DNA is human, it must be valued the same as any human. The argument that its intrinsic value is diminished because it could not survive on it's own is laughable because no child under the age of 3 or even 4 could survive with out help, so why is a new mother not given a grace period, and if they feel any time up to or before the 2nd birthday of their child that they can not handle the responsibility then they can have the child put down like any animal.
That probably seems horrific, but you either see human life as valuable or you do not; there is no middle ground. To say you are not for it but can’t be against it, for what ever reason, is both sickening and weak. A life is a life is a life. I am not Mother Nature and did not design the universe so that women would give birth and not men, and I am not going to apologize for it either.
Sex may feel good but its primary function is to produce offspring. So when that happens, it was not a "mistake" it was very much intentional, because that is what sex is intended to do. The fact that it feels good is only Gods (or evolutions) way of insuring we as free thinking beings would still do it. If sex were a neutral or unpleasant experience then we would rarely, if ever, partake because there would be much more thinking and planning and questioning involved and the human race would die out. Passion is an important part of our existence as a species and should not used as an excuse to then kill our own. "It was the heat of the moment, I did not mean for this to happed." maybe so but your body sure meant for it to happen, it's what it is made to do.
As to your final question... I don't care that people would sill try to have abortions even if it were illegal. Robbery, murder, and rape still happen even though it is illegal, so why then don’t we make it legal? Because, if we did it would happen a great deal more because there would be no negative consequences. We never make or don't make laws based on whether or not it will end an entire negative action. We make law so that we can - to the best of our ability - protect society; in this case, to protect the un-born.
Finally, there is no difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice, just as there was no difference prior to the civil war between pro-slavery and pro-choice. To think so is to lie to your self.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Reagan can calm us from the grave
Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)
Conservative Political Action Conference
Washington, DC
March 1, 1975
Reagan on horseback Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.
And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today
than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”
For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
Conservative Political Action Conference
Washington, DC
March 1, 1975
Reagan on horseback Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.
Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.
But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.
And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.
I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?
These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”
In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!
In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.
A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.
Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.
They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.
The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.
Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.
If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.
When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.
The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.
California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.
We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.
We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.
After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.
It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.
That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today
than then.
Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”
For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.
We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.
We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.
Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.
Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.
Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.
We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.
In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.
What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?
Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”
This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.
Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?
Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.
We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!
Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.
We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.
I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.
Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Why I'm Voting Democrat
I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending MY MONEY than I would. I think when you spread the wealth around it is good for everybody! It’s Patriotic!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. All profits are evil and should be confiscated for Government Redistribution.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that MORE Government regulations and higher taxes on Business will stop Business from exporting their jobs to Countries with LESS Government regulations and lower taxes.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe terrorists should be allowed to have trials in American courts. And be able to subpoena top secret documents, soldiers, government officials, etc. to cross examine for their defense. They should have ACLU lawyers who can help intimidate Americans who serve on the juries!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe in a FREE government health care system. I believe doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, etc. will gladly donate their time, products, services, facilities, etc. for FREE and that will be a better system.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe in and support trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury verdicts.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe 9/11 was an inside job to con the American people to go to war for oil.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe social security is solvent and that there is a social security lock box and I don’t believe social security is a Ponzi scheme.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe Gay Marriage should be the law of the land and will probably produce better children.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe English should not be the official language of the United States. I don’t mind pushing one for English when I use the phone.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe partial birth abortion is okay but water boarding a terrorist is disgusting.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe having a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers as a close friend is a good thing. It allows for great relations with foreign terrorists.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe MOST AMERICANS are bitter and cling to their guns and religion. Let’s rid our country of guns and religion!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe illegal aliens deserve all the rights of ordinary Americans plus some additional rights Americans do not have.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe groups like ACORN who register felons, drug addicts, wino’s, homeless drifters, illegal aliens, dead people, children, fictional Disney characters, etc. makes my vote count more.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe celebrating the winter solstice shows compassion for the small minority of people that do not celebrate Christmas.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe hard core criminal murders and rapists deserve life and that the innocent unborn deserve death. It’s a choice I can live with.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe Bush caused Hurricane Katrina and he blew-up the levies in the ninth ward of New Orleans.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe our soldiers are AIR RAIDING villages and killing innocent people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe sex in the Oval Office with an intern is a private matter and that everybody lies under oath about sex.
I'm votin Demokrat becuse I wus edumkated at a publick sckrool. I lik da NEA!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that any one who is not partaking in one of the many wonderful government programs obviously has too much money and should pay higher taxes.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq the terrorists will be happy and now think of us as good people.
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as it does not offend people. Can’t we all just get along?
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits are wrong. I believe higher taxes on oil companies will produce lower prices at the pump.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need to rid ourselves of dependency on foreign oil, BUT I AM AGAINST offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, drilling in Anwar, building nuclear power plants and clean coal technology.
And finally, I'm voting Democrat because I believe Reverend Wright when he said “GODDAMN AMERICA” and “OUR CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST”. Hey let’s make a comfortable nest for those chickens!
Why are you voting Democrat?
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. All profits are evil and should be confiscated for Government Redistribution.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that MORE Government regulations and higher taxes on Business will stop Business from exporting their jobs to Countries with LESS Government regulations and lower taxes.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe terrorists should be allowed to have trials in American courts. And be able to subpoena top secret documents, soldiers, government officials, etc. to cross examine for their defense. They should have ACLU lawyers who can help intimidate Americans who serve on the juries!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe in a FREE government health care system. I believe doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, etc. will gladly donate their time, products, services, facilities, etc. for FREE and that will be a better system.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe in and support trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury verdicts.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe 9/11 was an inside job to con the American people to go to war for oil.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe social security is solvent and that there is a social security lock box and I don’t believe social security is a Ponzi scheme.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe Gay Marriage should be the law of the land and will probably produce better children.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe English should not be the official language of the United States. I don’t mind pushing one for English when I use the phone.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe partial birth abortion is okay but water boarding a terrorist is disgusting.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe having a domestic terrorist like Bill Ayers as a close friend is a good thing. It allows for great relations with foreign terrorists.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe MOST AMERICANS are bitter and cling to their guns and religion. Let’s rid our country of guns and religion!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe illegal aliens deserve all the rights of ordinary Americans plus some additional rights Americans do not have.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe groups like ACORN who register felons, drug addicts, wino’s, homeless drifters, illegal aliens, dead people, children, fictional Disney characters, etc. makes my vote count more.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe celebrating the winter solstice shows compassion for the small minority of people that do not celebrate Christmas.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe hard core criminal murders and rapists deserve life and that the innocent unborn deserve death. It’s a choice I can live with.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe Bush caused Hurricane Katrina and he blew-up the levies in the ninth ward of New Orleans.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe our soldiers are AIR RAIDING villages and killing innocent people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe sex in the Oval Office with an intern is a private matter and that everybody lies under oath about sex.
I'm votin Demokrat becuse I wus edumkated at a publick sckrool. I lik da NEA!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that any one who is not partaking in one of the many wonderful government programs obviously has too much money and should pay higher taxes.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq the terrorists will be happy and now think of us as good people.
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as it does not offend people. Can’t we all just get along?
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits are wrong. I believe higher taxes on oil companies will produce lower prices at the pump.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need to rid ourselves of dependency on foreign oil, BUT I AM AGAINST offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, drilling in Anwar, building nuclear power plants and clean coal technology.
And finally, I'm voting Democrat because I believe Reverend Wright when he said “GODDAMN AMERICA” and “OUR CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST”. Hey let’s make a comfortable nest for those chickens!
Why are you voting Democrat?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
God has been served!
Chambers' suit against God tossed out
BY CHRISTOPHER BURBACH
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
You can't sue God if you can't serve the papers on him, a Douglas County District Court judge ruled in Omaha Tuesday.
Judge Marlon Polk threw out Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against the Almighty, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had been served. What's more, Polk found "there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant."
Chambers had sued God in September 2007, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes and tornadoes.
Although the case may seem superfluous and even scandalous to others, Chambers has said his point is to focus on the question of whether certain lawsuits should be prohibited.
"Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts," he said. "My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God."
Chambers, an avowed atheist, said he decided to make that point after at least two attempts in the Nebraska Legislature to limit "frivolous lawsuits."
The senator did have a day in court on the case. In August, he argued that Polk should take judicial notice of the existence of God. The senator cited the facts that U.S. currency says "In God We Trust," God is invoked during oaths in court hearings, and chaplains offer prayers before legislative bodies.
"If God is omnipresent," Chambers said in that August hearing, "then he is here in Douglas County and in this courtroom."
Polk was not persuaded.
His Tuesday ruling said Chambers' motion to take judicial notice of God "is denied as moot."
Chambers, reached at home Tuesday evening, said he hadn't yet seen the court order. He declined to comment until he could review the document today.
BY CHRISTOPHER BURBACH
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
You can't sue God if you can't serve the papers on him, a Douglas County District Court judge ruled in Omaha Tuesday.
Judge Marlon Polk threw out Nebraska Sen. Ernie Chambers' lawsuit against the Almighty, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had been served. What's more, Polk found "there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant."
Chambers had sued God in September 2007, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent God from committing acts of violence such as earthquakes and tornadoes.
Although the case may seem superfluous and even scandalous to others, Chambers has said his point is to focus on the question of whether certain lawsuits should be prohibited.
"Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts," he said. "My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God."
Chambers, an avowed atheist, said he decided to make that point after at least two attempts in the Nebraska Legislature to limit "frivolous lawsuits."
The senator did have a day in court on the case. In August, he argued that Polk should take judicial notice of the existence of God. The senator cited the facts that U.S. currency says "In God We Trust," God is invoked during oaths in court hearings, and chaplains offer prayers before legislative bodies.
"If God is omnipresent," Chambers said in that August hearing, "then he is here in Douglas County and in this courtroom."
Polk was not persuaded.
His Tuesday ruling said Chambers' motion to take judicial notice of God "is denied as moot."
Chambers, reached at home Tuesday evening, said he hadn't yet seen the court order. He declined to comment until he could review the document today.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The President Obama Cabinet
Bored...Thought I'd have a little fun picking President Elect Obama's Cabinet
Franklin Raines for Treasurer
Jesse Jackson - Secretary of State
William Ayers - Education Secretary
Rev. Wright - Director of Homeland Security
Tony Rezko- HUD
Father Pfleger- Attorney General (taking ALL your Guns)
Michelle Obama- Power behind the throne
You and I- in the Nevada Archipelago for re-education
White House= Rubber stamp for Reid/Pelosi
Franklin Raines for Treasurer
Jesse Jackson - Secretary of State
William Ayers - Education Secretary
Rev. Wright - Director of Homeland Security
Tony Rezko- HUD
Father Pfleger- Attorney General (taking ALL your Guns)
Michelle Obama- Power behind the throne
You and I- in the Nevada Archipelago for re-education
White House= Rubber stamp for Reid/Pelosi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
