Can you handle opposition?

I actually really appreciate opposing opinion.....it's ludicrous that the people in this country refuse to accept others' opinions. We all have our biases and we all form opinions based on those biases....neither side of an argument is absolute. I've grown in some of my positions and I'll hold firm in others regardless of the argument. It's also ludicrous that the bases of either party expect their elected leaders to toe the line of a party doctrine and never use critical thought to form their own opinions. For example, I deviate from the far right of my party when it comes to *some* immigration issues. I don't think the children of illegal aliens should be punished for being brought here illegally--the kids didn't do anything wrong!? However, I don't think they should be given special treatment that citizens don't get! Should they get in-state tuition? No, but why do we think inside the box all the time? Why can't colleges create a tuition rate for them that's not as high as foreign student but not as low as in-state residents? My point is there are other ways to follow our laws and protect our  sovereignty without discounting human decency.

When it comes to guns.....pass a Constitutional amendment if it's such a great solution. Change the 2nd Amendment to read instead of "shall not be infringed" to something like "may be regulated but shall not be removed".....

Things like gay marriage.....I'm a Christian and I have my beliefs as to homosexuality and the Bible. However, I have no right to impose my beliefs on you. We lose site of that the freedom of religion is also the right to freedom from religion should one choose. If I share my personal beliefs on gay marriage and the people don't want to elect me as their representative because of them so be it....but if my beliefs are well known and you don't agree with me but I'm elected anyway well, sorry, the people have spoken. BUT, we have the rule of law protecting the people from me going nuts and imposing my will on the people. Is one man marrying another immoral? That's debatable but it's based on personal bias. Is it illegal? No, and it shouldn't be whether I personally agree with it or not.

Abortion....I will never budge on this issue because I believe it's murder and murder is illegal. Abortion, in my opinion, should be illegal under any circumstance.

I'm a Republican....what's that mean?!

We need people like Boehner who capitulate out of self-preservation to GO AWAY!

Calvin Coolidge said that legislation should not benefit the legislator! Whenever our legislators pass laws or vote for bills because it's good for them or helps a specific special interest they are WRONG. 

We have lost so many Republicans to the Independent movement because we beat them over the head with individual religious beliefs. I'm a born-again Christian but this is wrong! How many conservative Independents or even Democrats who don't believe in the Christian God or who aren't Christians don't vote with us simply because we make them feel unwelcome if they're not Christians?! We're not the Christian-Conservative party....we're the Republican Party and we have Christian Conservative members. 

We have lost sight of certain elements of our party beliefs.....limited government. This doesn't mean NO government. Low taxes. This doesn't mean NO taxes. Government closest to the people...and like the article says, the 10th Amendment. 

How can we expect people to join our party and trust our leaders if we don't follow what we say we believe?! We need to have the courage of our convictions!!

We also need to have the courage to stand up for our principles and hold accountable those who fail to uphold them. For example, I don't care if it was written by Ronald Reagan himself, the Patriot Act is WRONG and Republicans need to REPEAL IT. We say the ends don't justify the means (and I agree with that) yet we herald leaders like Abraham Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus as a means to help end slavery. We may *personally* disagree with gay civil unions but those are our personal beliefs--is there anything illegal about allowing two consenting adults to enter into a contractual relationship? NO....and for those who don't share the same beliefs as us we have no right to stop them from doing something legal because we disagree with it!! We also need to stop throwing the proverbial babies out with the bathwater......when a Christian Conservative Republican like myself makes a statement like that...I'm not a RINO; I just have an inner sense of freedom and liberty that comes FROM my faith and my Lord, it's not in spite of Him. The same goes for illegal aliens....are they not humans? Have they broken the law? Yes...but everyone in this country who breaks the law gets humane treatment--that's American. If a child is brought to this country by it's parents at a young age THEY DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW their parents did! Do we take away the civil rights of the children of felons? Of course we don't...that's wrong. This is the same as telling a child who's lived in the USA their entire life that they now have to leave and go back to a country they don't even remember or have any connection to! Giving them a permanent green card and a legal "status" in this country is not amnesty. If they want to apply for citizenship they do it the same way anyone else would do it. If they want in-state tuition THAT'S UP TO THE STATE where they go to school--unless they are granted citizenship!

We don't live in an all-or-nothing world....if a Republican votes for raising the debt limit (which I disagree with on face value but there are other issues at stake--pragmatism) it doesn't mean he or she isn't a Republican nor does it mean we should hang them from the rafters. An elected representative can compromise on a singular piece of a singular issue without compromising their principles or values.

I'm frustrated with my party as many Republicans are...but I'm still proud to be a Republican. Do we need to make some changes...YES!! But we don't need to throw away the party. We just need more pragmatic leaders who are in it for sacrifice and service...not power.

Assault Weapon?

The term "assault weapon" is typically given to any of the scary military-like rifles or weapons such as an AR-15 or M-4.

The argument from the left is: "why do civilians need the same weapons as the military and law enforcement? When the 2nd Amendment was written the founders had no consideration or idea about modern assault weapons."

Funny thing though.....when the 2nd Amendment was written, citizens DID have the same guns as the military. So did the founders know what they were doing?

Gun Control...leads to tyranny

Here's the argument on gun control in a nutshell. One side says "the Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and by passing ANY law we're contradicting the constitution." the other side says "we need smart comprehensive laws that will protect mentally ill people from owning a gun and we need to protect from children being killed"....

Here's the thing: Yes, our Constitution says there shall be no infringement on our right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has affirmed that this is an individual right (although they are one branch of government and NOT the last word on anything). Here's the perfect compromise: IF restricting gun ownership and the purchase of ammunition is the answer then pass a Constitutional Amendment that amends the 2nd Amendment to define the rules for gun ownership. All we're saying is FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND STOP MAKING THINGS UP AS WE GO JUST TO APPEASE SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE. We either have the rule of law or we don't.....and if we don't, the United States of America as it has existed for 200+ years is gone.

Recessions and depressions are NORMAL

It's a fact that the economy at the end of Clinton's term was getting bad the country was in a recession by January of 2001 (google it.) . Did the recession happen while Bush was President...yes. But economic forces don't shift in three months...Did Bush fix it the right way? NO. He was just as much a Keynesian as Obama is...remember when we all go checks from the government? Stimulus packages from the Fed are RUINING this country and no matter what the consequences, even if it means depression, it needs to happen to right this sinking ship!!!! We are borrowing money from ourselves!?!??!??!?!
The 90's under Clinton were great because he worked with the Republican Congress. The President gets too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they don't. Americans don't think critically enough to understand that most economic policy comes from Congress. The President has a hand in it but spending and taxation comes from Congress. Of the four years Obama has been in President his party controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency for two years and they controlled the Presidency and Senate for the rest of the time. Democrats own our current economic state...they didn't start the fire but when they had a chance to grab an extinguisher, they chose gasoline.

Child's Play

I would bet anyone $100,000,000 (if I had it) that if President Romney were to sign an executive order opening ANWR for exploration, finishing Keystone Pipelines, and increasing exploration offshore in the gulf of Mexico....gas prices would drop a rock in a matter of weeks. Drilling wouldn't even be required....the law of Supply and Demand would take over...the middle east would immediately increase production and lower prices on the mere threat of competition from the USA. It would be good for the entire world...AND it could be the very catalyst to kick start our economy... No Keynesian spending, no QE3, just ONE executive order would get the economy moving again. Then follow that up with a Flat tax or THE FAIR TAX ACT and you'd see the U.S. (and subsequently global) economy JUMP into action!!!! It ain't rocket science and my prayer is that given Romney's business experience he understands these two very simple solutions.THEN repeal Obamacare. THEN strategically shrink the Federal Government by not hiring for attrition in key departments like the Dept of: Energy, Education, IRS, etc. THEN cut spending to any program federal program that has had no quantifiable result in the last 15 years. THEN defund things like the "Ad Council". THEN approve cap-n-trade (CAP Federal spending and TRADE it for State spending for programs that belong at the State level like education and transportation and HHS)...Romney is going to inherit a mess too....will he blame or FIX? Romney could have the economy running the RIGHT WAY in 100 days or less......

United Socialist States of America, a Communist Democracy?

I find it very interesting how the Communist Party USA seems to have all the same goals and values of many who claim to be part of the progressive movement or Democrat Party. The Communist movement is cloaked as the "progressive" movement and is an enemy of traditional American values. We're not a collectivist nation; we're a collection of individuals who reside in sovereign states united under a central government with enumerated powers. Our government was not instituted among men for the greater good; our government was instituted to protect the men and women of our country so they can individually support the common good. Our government wasn't created to give us rights; our rights come from something greater than man and our government was created to protect those rights. The United States of America is not a Communist country and Communist values are an anathema to our way of life.

I don't have a problem with Democrats who simply believe different things than me; that would be un-American. What I have a problem with is Democrats who call themselves "patriots" while proclaiming a new form of the same old values of Communism, Collectivism, Marxism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, etc. The form of Communism that is polluting the country I volunteered my life to defend is cloaked in equality, diversity, fairness, civil rights, and racism and it's called PROGRESSIVE. There is nothing progressive about changing our government to be the same as everyone else in the world. There is no progress in moving to a form of government that has existed since man has existed.

Social dominance theory is more or less the theory that states that humans will naturally form groups. We live in groups, we work in groups, we entertain ourselves in groups, we enjoy watching groups of people compete, we enjoy watching groups of people interact in fictitious situations, and these things have been in our nature since the dawn of man! Even my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, didn't go about his ministry on this earth by himself--he gathered a group of 12 men to go with him on his journey. The unique experiment that is the United States of America doesn't say groups or collections are bad; it simply challenged the thinking that we must exist as groups. The group of people who wrote the founding instructions for our country recognized that the most basic group is the family and the building block of that group is the individual.

I don't hate Communists, I just disagree with the premises they operate under. I don't hate Progressives I disagree with their ideology and approach to our government. I definitely don't hate Democrats; I just disagree with them on issues.

What I don't understand is the progressive way of thinking. I don't understand how the progressives on the left are willing to trade their freedoms for security. I don't understand why they believe that society is better than the individual at solving individual issues. I don’t understand how they are working to fundamentally change what made our country great to begin with?! Finally, what I really don’t understand is how the left tosses around pejoratives like bigot or racist without looking in the mirror. That leads me to the segway to my next post….”Are you a BIGOT for calling me a BIGOT!?” 

On the occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the United States of America

We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. The coming of a new life always excites our interest. Although we know in the case of the individual that it has been an infinite repetition reaching back beyond our vision, that only makes it the more wonderful. But how our interest and wonder increase when we behold the miracle of the birth of a new nation. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. Whatever may have been the impression created by the news which went out from this city on that summer day in 1776, there can be no doubt as to the estimate which is now placed upon it. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in grateful acknowledgement of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.

Although a century and a half measured in comparison with the length of human experience is but a short time, yet measured in the life of governments and nations it ranks as a very respectable period. Certainly enough time has elapsed to demonstrate with a great deal of thoroughness the value of our institutions and their dependability as rules for the regulation of human conduct and the advancement of civilization. They have been in existence long enough to become very well seasoned. They have met, and met successfully, the test of experience.

It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound. Amid all the clash of conflicting interests, amid all the welter of partisan politics, every American can turn for solace and consolation to the Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the United States with the assurance and confidence that those two great charters of freedom and justice remain firm and unshaken. Whatever perils appear, whatever dangers threaten, the Nation remains secure in the knowledge that the ultimate application of the law of the land will provide an adequate defense and protection.

It is little wonder that people at home and abroad consider Independence Hall as hallowed ground and revere the Liberty Bell as a sacred relic. That pile of bricks and mortar, that mass of metal, might appear to the uninstructed as only the outgrown meeting place and the shattered bell of a former time, useless now because of more modern conveniences, but to those who know they have become consecrated by the use which men have made of them. They have long been identified with a great cause. They are the framework of a spiritual event. The world looks upon them, because of their associations of one hundred and fifty years ago, as it looks upon the Holy Land because of what took place there nineteen hundred years ago. Through use for a righteous purpose they have become sanctified.

It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny.

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

While North Carolina has the honor of first authorizing its delegates to concur with other Colonies in declaring independence, it was quickly followed by South Carolina and Georgia, which also gave general instructions broad enough to include such action. But the first instructions which unconditionally directed its delegates to declare for independence came from the great Commonwealth of Virginia. These were immediately followed by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, while the other Colonies, with the exception of New York, soon adopted a like course.

This obedience of the delegates to the wishes of their constituents, which in some cases caused them to modify their previous positions, is a matter of great significance. It reveals an orderly process of government in the first place; but more than that, it demonstrates that the Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. Adopted after long discussion and as the result of the duly authorized expression of the preponderance of public opinion, it did not partake of dark intrigue or hidden conspiracy. It was well advised. It had about it nothing of the lawless and disordered nature of a riotous insurrection. It was maintained on a plane which rises above the ordinary conception of rebellion. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.

When we come to examine the action of the Continental Congress in adopting the Declaration of Independence in the light of what was set out in that great document and in the light of succeeding events, we can not escape the conclusion that it had a much broader and deeper significance than a mere secession of territory and the establishment of a new nation. Events of that nature have been taking place since the dawn of history. One empire after another has arisen, only to crumble away as its constituent parts separated from each other and set up independent governments of their own. Such actions long ago became commonplace. They have occurred too often to hold the attention of the world and command the admiration and reverence of humanity. There is something beyond the establishment of a new nation, great as that event would be, in the Declaration of Independence which has ever since caused it to be regarded as one of the great charters that not only was to liberate America but was everywhere to ennoble humanity.

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be under-estimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

The idea that the people have a right to choose their own rulers was not new in political history. It was the foundation of every popular attempt to depose an undesirable king. This right was set out with a good deal of detail by the Dutch when as early as July 26, 1581, they declared their independence of Philip of Spain. In their long struggle with the Stuarts the British people asserted the same principles, which finally culminated in the Bill of Rights deposing the last of that house and placing William and Mary on the throne. In each of these cases sovereignty through divine right was displaced by sovereignty through the consent of the people. Running through the same documents, though expressed in different terms, is the clear inference of inalienable rights. But we should search these charters in vain for an assertion of the doctrine of equality. This principle had not before appeared as an official political declaration of any nation. It was profoundly revolutionary. It is one of the corner stones of American institutions.

But if these truths to which the declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirety by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker of Connecticut as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that--

"The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people"

"The choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance."

This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise, entitled "The Church’s Quarrel Espoused," in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.

While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise, It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.

That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent." It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man." Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth . . . ." And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine." And still again, "Democracy is Christ’s government in church and state." Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed stated by Hooker as early as 1638.

When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature’s God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self-government--the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them. We hold that the duly authorized expression of the will of the people has a divine sanction. But even in that we come back to the theory of John Wise that "Democracy is Christ’s government." The ultimate sanction of law rests on the righteous authority of the Almighty.

On an occasion like this a great temptation exists to present evidence of the practical success of our form of democratic republic at home and the ever-broadening acceptance it is securing abroad. Although these things are well known, their frequent consideration is an encouragement and an inspiration. But it is not results and effects so much as sources and causes that I believe it is even more necessary constantly to contemplate. Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.

It was in the contemplation of these truths that the fathers made their declaration and adopted their Constitution. It was to establish a free government, which must not be permitted to degenerate into the unrestrained authority of a mere majority or the unbridled weight of a mere influential few. They undertook the balance these interests against each other and provide the three separate independent branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government, with checks against each other in order that neither one might encroach upon the other. These are our guaranties of liberty. As a result of these methods enterprise has been duly protected from confiscation, the people have been free from oppression, and there has been an ever-broadening and deepening of the humanities of life.

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

Why are we following and not leading?

I believe that Mr. Brooks (article below) couldn't be more right. If the progressive/socialist Democrats on the left think that free education, free healthcare, free rides is the way of the future they're dead wrong. They often say "we're the only modern industrialized nation who doesn't have national healthcare" but they ignore the world around them. Countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy to name a few are DEMONSTRATING that their system is not sustainable! Does this sound familiar: massive amounts of debt, high tax rates on the "rich", free primary education, free university education, free health insurance, social programs that spend billions? They are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the extreme progressive social ideas and programs cannot be sustained.

This is the United States of America, probably the most compassionate and understanding nation on the planet, can't we do better? When I was a child my mother told me to be a leader and not a follower and would frequently ask me things like "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?" and the answer to that is a resounding NO. So why can't we take that lesson and apply it to our beloved country? Why do we have to jump off the bridge just because everyone else is? Why don't we come up with a free market based solution that is *different* from everywhere else in the world and then have THEM follow us?

The FREE MARKET WORKS. Want proof? We have over 200 years of it in the USA!


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/brooks-what-republicans-think.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share

Increase tax revenue by decreasing tax rates

There are many on the left who have a one track approach to solving our fiscal issues in the U.S.A. today: eat the rich. This group of progressives feels that the only way we can get out from under the mountains of debt and budget deficits is to return to the profusely penalizing tax rates of the early 50's. Those tax rates would have the highest income earners paying 90% of their income in tax or more!! How could this be beneficial? The leftist progressives believe that a CEO making $20 million a year could easily do just fine on $2 million a year. I don't necessarily disagree that you could live very comfortably on $2 million a year but is it fair? Why is it fair for the CEO who likely worked through college earning a master's degree, who has likely been in the work force for 15-20 years, is responsible for millions of dollars, and is responsible for thousands of people's jobs to only take home 10% of their earned pay!? All too often the progressive left is willing to attack the leader of a for-profit corporation as some greedy devil while forgetting how those corporations on Wall Street benefit all of us. Have a 401K? A pension? A job? More than likely your 401k or public pension are invested in publicly traded corporations and if those corporations don't make a profit neither does your retirement fund.

So what the heck is Hauser's Law? It's a principle which states that the U.S.A. takes in around 19% of GDP in tax revenue regardless of the rate of taxation. As taxation increases, revenues to the treasury decrease. I agree that we need to increase tax revenues and cut spending to balance our budgets and get our country out of debt. I do NOT agree that the tax revenue increases should come by means of increasing the personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, death tax rates, or capital gains tax rates. We can increase tax revenue to the treasury by reducing tax rates and encouraging growth in the economy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602943209741952.html

Little Man

Happy Birthday to my main man Johnathan...5yrs old!

Federal Bureaucrazy at its best...

The Night Watchman

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job. Then Congress said “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies. Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports. Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created two positions:  a time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people. Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary. Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $918,000 over budget, we must cut back." So they laid-off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter...Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY during the Carter administration? Anybody?  Anything? No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line is, we've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency....the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember! Ready??   

It was very simple... and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate  The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL!!!!. Hey, pretty efficient, huh??? AND NOW IT'S 2011 -- 34 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! (THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?")

33 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports.

Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

NOW, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?

Signed,

The Night Watchman

Do you know?

Do you now why I call this blog "discussions in the Cabinet Room" with capital letters? Hint: it has to do with the picture of Cal!

The Compromise solution?

As promised here is what I know and understand about the health insurance system in Switzerland. First, some background.
Switzerland is a neutral country and has a very interesting government system. In my opinion, the Swiss have a form of government that can keep despots out of the system! Their executive branch is a--get this--collective presidency?! There is an executive council made up of seven executives who collectively hold the presidency and control of the executive branch! The four major parties in Switzerland are equally represented on the council based on population. Interesting! The legislature is very similar to our House and Senate and the judiciary is separate but equal just like it is in the USA. What would a seven member board look like in our executive branch based on voter registrations: 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, 1 Independent, 1 Libertarian, 1 no party?! Think anything would get done?

So, back to health insurance. Once you understand the Swiss government it's easy to understand how they have a healthcare system unlike anyone else in the world. There is a law that says everyone in the country must have insurance--even visitors. The Swiss life expectancy is second only to Japan and they spend 2.7% of GDP on health care!!

The health insurance is not administered by the government but it is paid for by the government--kinda. The basic plan that covers everyone is funded by the government but administered by private companies. The system is set up so that no one pays more than 10% of their income to health insurance and if someone is poor (although poverty in Switzerland is minimal) the government subsidizes the cost on a graduated scale. The beauty of the system is that it is tightly regulated but every citizen buys insurance in the free market from over 100 companies. Because the individual has some skin in the game, there are naturally occurring cost controls--you control your insurance and coverage!

It isn't a perfect system for conservatives OR progressives because there are pieces of the puzzle that neither group will like but if Senator Rand Paul can get on board with a version of the system a compromise could be possible!

I would recommend further reading on this if you're interested--the more Americans who are educated on the Swiss system the better chance we have to reaching a REAL solution to fix the problems in our health insurance system! Forbes did a great article last year that can be found here http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

Remembering those who serve

Ronald Reagan said that our country is the shining beacon on the hill but have you ever stopped to ask why we are that beacon? Our country is the greatest nation the world has ever seen. We are a country of individuals who swim upstream to accomplish the impossible. We are a country driven by achievement but is also the most compassionate in the world. There are two reasons our country is different and will remain the shining beacon on the hill. First, our country is and has always been uniquely blessed by God.  Second, that blessing and our prosperity are protected and sustained by the Sailors, Soldiers, Marines, and Airmen who have voluntarily given their lives for the people of our nation. The first of these comes freely from God; the second comes from the sacrifice of the individuals who wrote a blank check for up to and including their life.

Today is a day for family, friends, and remembrance. But before your barbeques and fun take a moment to remember those who have served, those who serve today, and those who died to guarantee our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Anchors Aweigh. 

LearnLiberty.org LOVE IT!

Couldn't help but sharing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1Moeaa-W8&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Let's talk health insurance....

Okay I'm back in action and will dedicate at least three blog posts a week! Let's get the followership up up up!!! What is on the docket today? HEALTHCARE!!

What is the perfect compromise solution to the health insurance crisis in the United States today?

Before we start discussing the system, we have to accept several basic premises of our government; this will be part one of the blog posts for the week.

First of all, there is no problem with the health care system in the USA there is a problem with the health insurance system! Second, a “right” is something that comes from something greater than another human being. This is fundamentally why our founders stated in the Declaration of Independence that we are “endowed by our creator certain unalienable rights.” One has to accept the premise that if we allow our rights to come from other humans then those rights can be taken away. I understand that in some situations one’s right to liberty can be removed but it must be through the due process of the law. Next, if a right is something endowed to us from a “creator” then there is no basic right to have someone else pay for your health insurance. Access to the healthcare system (doctors, hospitals, clinics, prescriptions) or having someone else pay for one's access is not a right because it involves one taking something from someone else.

It is my opinion that the best compromise situation for the United States’ health insurance system is a system similar to Switzerland.

The next post will compare and contrast the Swiss insurance system to the American system. Until then remember the words of President Calvin Coolidge (who I'll quote frequently!): “The suspension of one man’s dividends is the suspension of another man’s pay envelope. Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority.”

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!

I was wondering if I was being fed some mis-information about what our children are being taught in school about democracy and the heritage of our country. So, I decided to do some fact checking. Wow, talk about misinformation. Below I have pasted excerpts from textbooks in use here in Arizona that are approved books elsehwhere in the U.S. also.

What I basically found is that our children are being spoon fed mis-information by Government schools. Here's some proof about government schools teaching our kids that this country is a democracy, WE AREN'T!!:

Taken from Houghton-Mifflin:

http://www.eduplace.com/ss/socsci/books/content/ilessons/5/ils_gr5a_u9_c19_l3.pdf

"In a democracy, all people help shape the government. The United States is a democracy that gives its citizens many rights.....Citizens must pay taxes. Men over 18 years old have the responsibility of registering for the military. A strong democracy like the United States depends on its citizens to participate."

Welcome

Woo hoo....here we go! I'll get firing on this tonight, in the meantime check out
www.doughoffmanforcongress.com seems like a good guy! (I'm not in NY)