As those of us on the right have long known, a free-market economy, free of incessant Government intervention, is a hallmark of Conservatism in American politics. And, amid the skepticism, in regards to Romney’s sincerity on Conservative politics, and Limited Government, he recently made two statements that were very telling:

1. “My view is to allow the minimum wage to rise with the CPI (basically, a measurement of inflation), or with another index…” (video)

2. ”I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” (video)

Allow the minimum wage to rise? Keep up with inflation? Repair the (Federal) safety-net?

Minimum wage, while on the surface, may seem compassionate, it is actually a policy that keeps the skilled-workers working, and freezes out the less-skilled, and first-time workers. And, Inflation is caused by the incessant printing of money by The Federal Reserve, which devalues our currency, and causes all goods and services to rise in cost. Therefore, if I am not mistaken, Mitt Romney is basically suggesting that, under his Presidency, inflation, the minimum wage, and the welfare state, are here to stay, and will be tweaked, and adjusted, by the Technocratic Manipulators in his Administration!

So, while Mitt and friends, continue to print monopoly money, and prices continue to rise – some of us, who are fortunate enough to be employed, as the minimum wage increases, will be employed, and the rest of society will survive by living in the demoralizing world of  food stamps and welfare?

read more…

Every two years, when there are national elections in The United States, inevitably, we hear pundits ask these types of questions: What vision do they have for our country? What direction do they want to lead our country? What values do they hold?

While such things may appeal to the sensibilities of voters, and are a clever way for politicians to win our votes, I often take exception to these sorts of questions:

In our Federal Constitution, The framers gave The United States Congress 16 explicit, and Enumerated Powers, to which they could legislate. And, since then, there has been 27 subsequent Amendments. Nowhere in our Constitution is it written that anyone in our Federal Government shall have the power to legislate the values or morals of each “individual” in this union of “sovereign states.”

By no means, am I suggesting that values are not important. The values we hold, are a core part of who we are, and of our very existence.  However, each of us has our own set of values, our own morals, and our own faiths. The Founders also made We The People the sovereigns in this Federalist system of ours, and outside of the Limited and Defined, Constitutional Powers, that We The People have given to our Federal Government, all other things should be left to our respective states, or to us, as sovereign individuals. 

Therefore, in my humble opinion, the above questions should be answered as such:
The vision, and direction of our “Federal Government,” should always be moving in the direction that our Federal Constitution, ”explicitly,” calls for; which is the formula that made this country great from it’s inception. Period!

Regardless if I share the same values, or faith, as a person running for office, I still expect them to uphold the very document that they have taken an oath to; and let us, the people of this great country, decide how we should best govern “our own lives!”

–
Posted also at Conservative Daily News

Below is a video clip of the 2000 Presidential debates, where George W. Bush (Republican candidate) was debating Al Gore (Democrat candidate) for the office of President of The United States. The Bush Administration, after 911, was criticized harshly, for their foreign and domestic policies, in regards to the war on terrorism; which led to the invasion of Iraq, The Patriot Act, and many other things, that were rightly scrutinized, in regards to policy, and The United States Constitution. As I listen to the below clip, I believe that candidate Bush was spot on, in regards to his philosophy on foreign policy, war, nation-building etc. The question that I, and many others, would ask, is, why are so many candidates so right when running for office, then, after elected, precede to trample right over our Constitution and Civil Liberties? That is a question that remains one of the great mysteries, and a sad reality, of American politics!

–

–

Over and over, we hear from the far-left in this country how, the rich should be paying their fair-share. And, there is this continued presumption by the left, that, the rich owe citizens more and more simply because they are rich. It is well-established that the rich in this country pay far more taxes then any other group of citizens. In fact, there is a vast amount of American citizens who are currently paying no Federal Income Tax, whatsoever. So, the logical question that should be asked, is, why are these citizens not paying their so-called, fair-share?

I recently saw this clip of Elizabeth Warren, where she says, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own.” That, in my humble opinion, and in the context of how she framed it, is not only very disturbing, but it also confirms another presumption by the left, that, business owners, who have become successful in business, are the only ones who gain from their business. Nothing could be further from the truth! For example, let’s consider a local supermarket: Every day, that supermarket works around the clock to bring fresh food products to “their communities.” This is a “luxury” that we Americans really take for granted; but, this luxury is a direct result of our mostly free-market economy, and the entrepreneur who “took the risk” and opened that supermarket.

We also need to consider the hundreds of employees that the supermarket owner employs. And, how about the thousands of companies that manufacture these food products? The supermarket owner, by buying and selling their products, has helped those companies to grow; and, by extension, has helped those respective companies to hire more people, as their needs grow.

read more…

Sadly, once again, we are seeing, how, if fellow Americans stand up for OUR Constitution, and question the powers being exercised by our President, and Federal Government, in general, the BIG GOVERNMENT crowd automatically want to assume that you are defending the actions of  people like Al-Awlaki; which is an utterly ludicrous, and divisive, assertion! If anything is true, both The Republicans and Democrats, largely, have proven, when it comes to war, declared or not, they are NO friend to our Constitution, and are more then happy to give our Presidents unlimited and arbitrary wartime powers. History has given us more then enough examples to know, how this is a real slippery-slope; and, again, why our Founders limited our Federal Government, even (if not especially) in wartime.

When our Federal Government put these TSA people in our airports, it began to wake many Americans up to the reality that, even though we still have serious potential threats against our country, that, our Federal Government is slowly trampling all over our Freedoms and Constitutional rights.

Today, The CIA, to my knowledge, is still only allowed to operate on foreign soil; but, let’s suppose that, one of these days, Congress makes a law that allows The CIA to assassinate American citizens “suspected” of terrorism, on U.S. soil; and, if necessary, to launch predator drones. I wonder then, if the BIG GOVERNMENT enablers would be singing a different tune?

As long as we Americans remain fearful, and allow that fear to further empower our Federal Government, well beyond their Constitutional Powers, then, we will one day be asking, “who will protect us from our own Government”?

GOD help us!

In 1787, when our Constitution was debated and written by the delegates of the thirteen original states, and subsequently ratified by the state legislatures, it was agreed that The United States would be a Federation of sovereign states, with a [Republic] Republican form of Government.

At the time when The Constitution was being debated, there were two primary groups: One was The Federalists, who, at the time, were more like Nationalists, who believed in a powerful top down sort of Central Government, and The Anti-Federalists, who, had several reservations to the new Constitution, and strongly believed in the sovereignty of the states. In fact, it was the anti-Federalists who we can thank for our treasured Bill of Rights; as the anti-Federalists would not sign onto the new Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was guaranteed.

Sadly, after only a few short years of The U.S. Constitution being ratified, factions were already forming, as The Federalists, despite entering into a (Constitutional) contract with the rest of the states, began putting forth legislation that was an obvious abridgment to the sovereignty of the states, and well exceeded the Limited Powers given to The Federal Government.

read more…

With the recent budget battle going on in Congress, and the unbelievable amount of debt that our Federal Government has allowed to accrue for our country – thankfully, it seems like the majority of American citizens have come to the conclusion that Congress can no longer be trusted to borrow responsibly against the credit of The United States; and therefore, seem to be on board with getting a Balanced Budget, Constitutional Amendment through Congress, and sent to the states for ratification – where 3/4s of the states will be required to ratify it, for the Amendment it to be written into our Constitution.

I am of the opinion that, unless Congress is willing to endorse this Amendment, and send it to the states for ratification, that, no further increase in our national debt should be allowed. The American people, our country, and future generations, need to be assured that, God-willing, we can get out of this mess, that unprincipled politicians will not be able to bring us to this point again in the future.

Sadly, the sticking point with most Democrats always seems to be a desire to raise the marginal tax rates on income earners. I am one that absolutely believes that our Federal Government does not have a revenue problem, but, rather, an out of control spending problem.

That said, while there is no doubt, that, tax increases, on a micro-economic scale, will hurt families and businesses, and would be bad for an already suffering economy, on a macro-economic scale, if our Federal Government borrows more money, the interest on the current debt will also continue to compound, interest rates on borrowing may go higher, and who will be expected to pay off this debt in the future? The American people and our taxes! Also, if we are able to prevent Congress from raising taxes, and borrowing more money, The Federal Reserve can, and may very well, fire up the printing presses, and further inflate our currency – which steals from our savings, and is tantamount to a national sales tax, as prices on goods and services will continue to rise.

Therefore, imho, if we are to focus solely on the marginal tax hike issue, that is not looking at the BIG picture. While, I am not, and would not, advocate for any tax hike, if we are forced to choose between the lessor of the three evils: more borrowing, more currency printing, or tax hikes, a marginal tax increase, quite honestly, may be the lessor of those three evils; as more inflationary printing, and borrowing, likely, would only serve to further stagnate our economy, and bring us even closer to fiscal insolvency.

Sure, we can stop taxes from being raised, and, we can hopefully stop the borrowing, but, without an act from Congress, how do we get The Federal Reserve to stop flooding the market with more monopoly money?

GOD help us!

The words “Separation of Church and State,” were a metaphor used by Thomas Jefferson, in his correspondence between himself and The Danbury Baptists, in 1801. His exact words, were, “thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

These words, by Jefferson, to The Danbury Baptists, were used to demonstrate to them, and confirm, that, Constitutionally, our “Federal” Government was removed, legislatively, from the establishment, and prohibition, of any religion in the United States. Jefferson’s metaphor, not only is nowhere in the Constitution, but even in his letter, the metaphor was never intended to apply to our respective states. He was reassuring the Danbury Baptists that our Federal Government would not, and could not, make any laws that would abridge their religious freedoms.

It is the (Federal Government) Supreme Court, who, nefariously, used Jefferson’s metaphor to lead people to believe that there was no role for even state Governments, in our respective states, in the area of religion.

The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, was intended to ‘protect’ our individual rights, in our respective states. In the Everson vs. the Board of Education case, members of the Supreme Court used the case as a way to begin removing some of the state’s and the people’s (First Amendment) religious rights – which, traditionally, would have been a matter for the voters and their state constitutions to address.

Prior to that decision, state and local Governments did have some role, in our respective states, in the area of religion. It was after this Supreme Court decision, that public schools started removing prayer from schools etc. And, this is the same Federal Government that, for the last 30 or so years, many Conservative (likely, well-intended) groups have been working to ‘further empower’ with certain powers that, Constitutionally, have always belonged to, and, should always belong to the states.

Further Reading:
Everson vs. the Board of Education
10th Amendment

Recently, I had a good friend of mine, knowing that I am both a Christian, and lean in the Libertarian direction, ask me my thoughts on the subject of Christianity and gay marriage. After a few days of thought, I decided that I would (with her permission) post our correspondence, on the site, and hopefully get some ‘insightful’ comments and feedback. This subject, as with others like it, can elicit passions from people of all faiths, and backgrounds. I can, and do, respect, all points of view. I only ask that everyone please be respectful to each other’s points of view, as well. The only way to find real solutions, to complex issues, in a country as large and diverse as ours, is to have open and honest discussion and debate.

Hi Mark, the questions I wanted to ask you are about homosexuality and where we should stand on it as patriots. I really waver on this issue. I know where I stand on it Biblically, but I am unsure politically where to be.

Hi Kori, well, me and you would agree, that, Biblically, homosexuality, according to God, himself, is a sin. So, we both agree, from a Biblical perspective. But, I have also thought of this a lot, as you have – and, as a Christian, I know that my relationship is between myself and God. Not, myself, my fellow citizens and God. My sense of morality comes from my Biblical beliefs – and, not from laws decreed by my Government. Also, I try to never judge anyone, Kori, lest I too want to be judged.

If all men are created equal and endowed by Him with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then should homosexuals be allowed to do what they wish?

I tend to lean in the yes direction. For example, marriage-licensing, to the best of my knowledge, and from what I have read, was made up by Government; and, instituted in The United States, in the early (please double-check that) 1800s. Therefore, who is the Government to tell any ‘two’ people that you can not have a contract together? In fact, contracts are wholly Constitutional, and should be adjudicated in our court system. So, there again, is this Government ‘legislation’ (or lobby groups) using licensing to social engineer our country, and play morality police? read more…

In George Washington’s Farewell Address – among the many insightful topics that he covered, his warning of the dangers of forming political parties, in our country, were, perhaps, his most brilliant words of all.

I’m sure there are many definitions of faction; but, when I think of political factions, I think of it as any like-minded group of voters, or elected officials, trying to infiltrate, or influence, our Government, laws, Constitution etc.

As George Washington, astutely, pointed out, the formation of factions, and allegiances, among several like-minded individuals, is, indeed, consistent with human-nature. However, in my humble opinion, they also defy human-nature. For example, we are individuals; and, as individuals, we don’t generally appreciate being controlled, or told to walk lockstep with a certain ideology; yet, we see this in so many facets of our lives, and political system - read more…

No doubt, there are many factors, and opinions, that could be cited, as to how our country has arrived at this point in our history; but, please allow me to share a few of my general insights:

In The United States, indeed, every citizen should have the God-given right to vote; however, in our Federal Constitution, The framers gave The United States Congress 16 explicit, and Enumerated Powers, to which they could legislate; all other matters were to be left to the respective states.

Sadly, over the years, Congress has completely rejected these limitations; and, as a result, has allowed our country to be enslaved in debt; and, with trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, for so-called entitlement programs.

As a result, from their lack of prudence to our Constitution, our Congress has enabled the voters to vote for almost anything that any legislator could dream up! Therefore, while Congress has been constitutionally-elected, they have still set the stage for the voters to knowingly, or unknowingly, vote their fellow citizens out of their freedoms and property.

And, this is likely why we still have the ‘illusion’ that we have our Constitutional Republic; when, in fact, our Federal Government has been transmuted into a quasi-Socialist National Government.

For many years, and particularly over the last few years, we hear the term Conservative, used, generally, to describe the political right, in The United States; but, can such an ambiguous word be used to accurately describe the political right? Are all said Conservatives indeed to the political right?

According to the Founders of The United States, the further left, is the addition of more Government, and the further right, was less Government. Therefore, the furthest left would be, rightly called, tyranny; with the furthest right, anarchy. (ref.) It is said that the majority of Americans are center-right, which, in my humble opinion, would accurately describe where our Founders positioned us, Constitutionally, in 1787.

If we were to sub-divide the word, Conservative, we could begin to really start breaking it into many different sub-categories; to name a few: Social Conservatives, Christian Conservatives, Political Conservatives, and Constitutional Conservatives.

Unfortunately, and perhaps, naturally, I suppose there is a general hypocrisy in most politics, in all countries; but, in The United States, it really does seem that most people, in some way or another, wants our Federal Government to be limited; in other words, less intrusive in certain areas of our lives. On the other hand, while most people want a Limited Government in some areas, they still want The Federal Government to intervene in other areas of our lives. This thinking is not only arbitrary among different groups of constituents, but, it lacks any sort of cohesion upon which we can have a Federal Government that is fair, just, limited, and operates with any sort of real continuity.

Allow me to elaborate:
read more…

Well, sadly, here we go again! Last night, The United Nations approved a ‘No Fly Zone’ over Libya. Isn’t that wonderful? Has anybody, who is reading this, voted for members of The UN?

Today, I called the offices of Congressman Boehner, and Cantor; as well as my own Representative. Congress, our ‘elected officials,’ did not even have a vote as to whether or not America should be involved at all, in Libya! Therefore, we not only have ‘unelected’ officials determining our foreign policy, but we also have ‘unelected’ officials, at The Federal Reserve, who are likely funding it. But, in the long-run, of course, we will be expected to pay for it!

Regardless of what is happening in Libya, there is no apparent threat to The Continental United States! Our Constitution says that only “Congress” can provide for The Common “Defense,” and Declare War:

–
Article 1, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”

“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”
–
read more…

In this very unfortunate time, in our country’s history, we have come to a point, economically, where we are faced with some very daunting choices…

Naturally, and understandably, there are things, that, as a nation, we have come to expect from our Federal Government; whether they are wholly Constitutional, such as having a military to defend our nation; or were created without explicit Constitutional authority, as with Medicare and Social Security, these three things, among others, are often referred to as sacred cows. They are referred to as such, because, while the majority of Americans appear to be realizing that we do, indeed, need to make some tough fiscal choices, in regards to Government-spending - generally-speaking, it is always some one else’s programs, or sacred cows, that, when asked, should be the first to be cut, or eliminated.  I suppose that should be of no surprise, as it is a very part of our human-nature to not want to be forced into making potential, life-altering decisions.

Irregardless, according to most professionals, these are the three items, in our Federal budget, that seem to be placing our Federal Government, and country, in very serious danger of  going broke. Therefore, in my humble opinion, all programs, and all agencies, in the Federal Government, must be put on the table; and every American, who really wants to see our country be passed onto future generations, as a free and prosperous nation, must be willing to make some difficult choices.

Most, if not all, Americans, would agree, a military is absolutely critical to our security; and, like it or not, millions have become dependent on Medicare and Social Security. For these reasons alone, these three items, in our country, are classified as the third rail of politics; simply, because, they are very hot things to touch, politically. And, generally-speaking, only the most honest of politicians will give us the truth, in regards to the sovereignty, and longevity, of these three items. 

While some, in our Federal Government, including our President, have publicly acknowledged that Medicare, then Social Security, are the two Government programs, that, if unchanged, will put our nation most at risk, few are putting fourth any serious legislation that would deal with any of the these increasing monstrosities.

I don’t have all the numbers, and I am not an economist, but one idea I have heard, and really liked, was to block grant Medicare and Social Security down to the respective states, and let the states manage them, and decide their fates, going forward. That would not only be a great step, Constitutionally, in regards to states’ rights, but it would also allow our Federal Government to get back to the few things that they were initially created for, by our Founders; while, getting their own fiscal house in order! read more…

As most Americans are aware of, The First Amendment of The United States Constitution, contains these words:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

As Americans, we should be outraged by the horrific, and tragic, shootings, that took place, last weekend, in Tuscon, Arizona. And, we should all want our Representatives, and all members of Congress, to feel secure, when they are out seeing their constituents. However, even more frightening, in light of this tragedy, is some members of Congress, who think they have some right of ownership over our speech, and political discourse, are talking about creating new laws that would regulate certain types of political discourse in America! That would not only be outrageous, but very misguided, and very un-Constitutional!  

Everyday, I hear political discourse, and often from Congress themselves, that is infuriating, and divisive! However, I would never, in a 1000 years, go out and harm another person, simply because I don’t like what they are saying! 

Consider this:

So often, in the last two years, we hear members of The Democrat Party, in Congress, and The President, himself, perpetually bash rich people, and perpetuate this class-warfare, divisive, rhetoric. Now, God-forbid, if a poor person were to go out and start gunning down millionaires, can we call for a Federal investigation of members of Congress, for antagonizing murder? Of course not! Even the thought of it is ridiculous!

And, if Congress were given the ability to regulate speech, where would it end? And, how long would it be before they start regulating our religious freedoms? As our Founders, wisely, knew: such powers, in the hands of a central government, would undoubtedly become arbitrary, and inevitably, despotic! In fact, in countries where the Freedoms of Speech are suppressed, it is very likely that the bigger guns do prevail! Our Freedom of Speech, and free elections, are absolutely necessary for free people to vent their frustrations, and discontent, with their government; which, ultimately, prevents a free nation from digressing into a chaotic, and despotic, state! read more…

Inflation is caused by excessive currency printing by our Federal Government; and, inflation causes our currency to devalue; which, in return, causes the price for goods and services to rise…

To continue with their current level of spending, our Federal Government basically has two options:

1. Borrow more money from other countries – which increases our national debt; causes the interest on our current debt to compound further; and which needs to be paid back at some point in the future.

2. Raise taxes on the citizens.

Since raising taxes is not very popular, politically, and continuing to borrow money is not very prudent, our Federal Government, instead, creates money out of thin air, to support their desire to spend more money. Therefore, anyone who insists that our Federal Government spend more money, without cutting spending in other areas, should keep in mind, that, all people, of all income levels, at some point, are going to be affected by inflation. And, likely, not too far in the distant future. For anyone who remembers the late 70s, not much else really needs to be said.

While the current income tax rates were recently extended by Congress; and, while it is better, economically, for people and businesses to keep more of their own money – as long as The Federal Government continues to create and spend more money it doesn’t have, eventually, down the road, this will still be tantamount (in the form of inflation) to a consumption-based, or national sales tax. For these reasons, and several others, it is said that inflation is the most insidious tax of all. read more…

As most Americans are aware of, in The United States’ Federal Government, we have three branches of Government: The Executive Branch, which includes The President, Vice-President, and their cabinet; The Legislative Branch (Congress), which is made up of The Senate and The House of Representatives; and The Judicial Branch, which is The Supreme Court. But, do we really have three branches of government? …

After it was decided by the framers of our Constitution to incorporate the theory of seperation of powers, as conceived by Charles-Louis de Secondat (Baron de Montesquieu), the question, of course, then became: how do the occupants of these three branches get elected or appointed?

While the framers debated as to how The President of The United States shall be appointed, the opinion seemed to be most in favor of allowing Congress to appoint The President. There were also some who thought the state governors should appoint The President. And, finally, some who thought The President should be elected by a popular vote by the citizens. After much debate, it was decided, that allowing Congress to appoint The President was a slippery-slope to legislative tyranny, as it could have made The President beholden to those who appointed him, if he were to retain his position of power. The framers, not thinking it was prudent to allow an often uninformed, and disengaged, citizenry, to directly elect The President, decided on creating the electoral process (Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2), which directed state legislatures to select electors (virtuous and trusted citizens) from their respective state, and these electors would select two people who they would elect as President – with the most votes being President, and the runner up, Vice-President. The number of electors was to be equal to the amount of Representatives and Senators that each respective state had in Congress.

And, here is where it began to get dicey:

read more…

While The Constitution is The Supreme Law of The Land, we should always keep in mind, that,
The Declaration of Independence not only declared our independence from England, but, was also a declaration, by our founders, of their philosophy on governance, and the foundation for the newly established United States.

Keynesian Economics, which derives from The British economist John Maynard Keynes’ 1936 book, The General Theory of Employment, has had a recent resurgence in The United States, as well as in several other countries around the world.

Historically, in The United States, these economic theories were employed in The Franklin Roosevelt Administration, during The Great Depression, in the 1930s. And, most recently, starting with The Bush Administration, and increased, exponentially, during The Obama Administration.

I could begin listing a host of reasons why, economically, I don’t believe Keynesian economics is a viable system, however, there are 1000s of books on this subject, and tons of information on the Internet. I would prefer to take a more philosophical approach:

Our founders, in The United States, created a Constitution which clearly limited the powers of The Federal Government; as evidenced by the enumeration of (explicit) powers to Congress, in Article 1, Section 8. And, to The President, in Article 2, Section 1.

Keynesian economics presupposes that our Federal Government can tax the citizens of The United States for any amount they like, and spend it in any way that they see fit! This presumption is not only a subversion to our free-market system, as set fourth by our founders, but it’s also an abridgement to the freedoms of The American people! Every dollar that our Federal Government taxes away from the citizens, is one less dollar the citizens have to feed their families, pay their bills, and create, or invest into, their own businesses – which provides sustainable capital, and employment, for more citizens! There is also a presumption that they, The Federal Government, can mandate and manage the very goods and services that The American people are to acquire!

If our founders were so certain that The Federal Government could solve all problems, they certainly would not have limited it’s powers! And, most certainly, they would not have created a Republic that allowed “free-people” to pursue their own lives, and their own happiness. Clearly, our founders fought a war because of the same style of top down, heavy-handed, government, that made them feel oppressed by Great Britain in the late 1700s!

For anyone who believes a central government can solve all the problems of the it’s citizens, then Keynesian economics may work for you. But, for those who still believe in individual liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as declared by our founders, then we must see that this growing Federal Government is reduced, exponentially! And, bound by the chains of The Constitution, as conceived by our founders!

Traditionally, in America, many, if not most Americans, have dreamed of having their own business. And, in America, some have been more willing to take that risk then others. Either way, please remember,  just the fact that you, as an American citizen, can wake up on any given day, and decide that you would like to start your own business, is an amazing freedom that our founders bestowed to us! 

We must always be mindful of the great blessings and freedoms we have in this country. And, if necessary, be willing to fight, even die, to defend those freedoms!

Our founders entrusted these freedoms to we, the people; and to show them that we are eternally grateful for their hard work, we “must” carry on the torch of freedom, and pass it onto our next generation.

God Bless The United States of America!

In this previous post, there is a video of David Asman, interviewing three guests, which included Congressman Ron Paul; they are discussing a recent poll of 1000 American voters, who were asked, is President Obama a Socialist? 55% of those polled, answered yes…

Politically speaking, this is, of course, very good news for The Republican Party, with the upcoming midterm elections in November; however, to have a President, or anyone in our Federal Government that advocates such policies, is never a good thing. It is certainly one thing to be in a political science class, or on a college campus, discussing different political systems; and theorizing why certain systems may have succeeded or failed; it is quite a different story when people are elected to high office and attempt to put such policies in place; especially without an overwhelming consensus from the people who elected them to office!

And regardless of ones motivation to advocate such policies, Socialism has a proven record of failure, and makes no real sense, economically-speaking; it generally requires a top down, authoritarian type of government, which, inherently, makes it a very dangerous system to a free nation.

Certainly, most Americans are not opposed to some short-term, transitional, social programs, to help fellow citizens get back on their feet; but The American people also realize, this great country was built on hard work; and most people in society, one way or the other, can be a useful and productive member of society.

Most of The American people have an intrinsic desire to be productive, and believe in freedom, and our free-market system of commerce and enterprise. And, because of our history, most Americans realize, the free-markets are a great contributor to what has made our country free and prosperous since the days of our founding.

In a time when people are simply attempting to survive job losses and economic challenges, I am reminded of how our country was founded and what turn of events transpired to bring about the greatest experiment in self- governance that has ever been conceived. To fully appreciate how far we have moved away from the original designs of our founding documents, we must first understand where it is that our country came from. In particular we should look at the personal aspirations of the brave souls who fought against all odds to not only come to this new land, but then to battle the tyranny of government from afar and overcome hardships that we dare not imagine.

The history of the United States is mired with many tragic events, wars, popular and unpopular political leaders and outspoken critics of government. Certainly there is no shortage of those types of folks today, however there is a key difference between the political leaders of history and those of today. The missing ingredient – in this writers eyes – is honor. Many, and dare I say most, of our political leaders lack honor. Not ’honor’ in the classical sense, but rather an honor that is so deep that it is espoused as a permanent and integral part of their essence. This honor is of the highest magnitude, it surpasses doing what is right simply because it is right and it holds a stronger bond than any familial blood line; no, this honor is about doing what is right because not doing it would grate infinitely harsh against the inner core of your being, such that you would rather suffer immeasurable and irreparable harm than fail at preserving it.

Too often our political leaders view holding office as a power grab, despite their assertion otherwise. It ends up being their golden parachute or fulfilling an internal desire to be famous. Whatever the reasons may be, it is seldom that we find true statesmen. Who do we have, or have we had in our midst in the last 20 years that would begin to measure up against the bar set so high by those such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams. Certainly they exist, but unfortunately they are very rare. The political climate of today instead reflects the poor quality of self-deserving politicos who would rather do what is expedient for the purposes at hand and forgo doing that which is honorable.

The interesting thing here is that it stems not from politicians, but rather the citizens of this once great country who vote them into office because their personal needs would be better served by a political type buying votes as opposed to one doing what is right and just – honorable. Of course we must not forget those who do not vote, as an abstained vote is tantamount to condoning the status quo or roughly the same as a vote against the trailing candidate. But then this isn’t a lesson on why one should vote, but rather why it is important that we maintain the utmost respect for an institution that transcends individual desires.

For many years, a lot of us were led to believe that The Republican Party were the ones keeping alive the institution of slavery in The United States, or they were somehow the party that was not compassionate to African American citizens over the years. While I do not like to over-generalize, and say that any political party platform, in it’ s totality, speaks for all people who are members of that party… through further research, I have found the inverse to be true: The Republican Party not only freed the slaves, but have also been fundamentally pro-African American since then.