The Real History of Democrats and Republicans

For the record, please note that when I reference Liberals in this post, I mean ELECTED Liberals.  Those of you who read my writings know that I differentiate between well meaning private citizens who are Liberals and those who are elected to public office.

Democrats have spent years convincing Americans that they are the party with the claim on being for Civil Rights, that they are the party who is concerned with minorities, and that Republicans are the party of racism and xenophobia.  Unfortunately for Democrats, history does not back this at all.  Democrats will try to tell you "the Republicans USED TO BE the Democrats and the Democrats USED TO BE the Republicans.  This is untrue.  Rather, the Republican party had a specific set of legislative goals which were achieved, for all intents and purposes, by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown v. Board of Education. 

For the record a full 80% of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted in favor of the bill, as opposed to 60% of Democrats, and 82% of Senate Republicans voted for the bill, as opposed to 69% of Senate Democrats. (1)  But history goes back much, much further.  So let's take a look at the history of these two political parties. 

History of the Democrat Party


The modern Democratic Party would like to trace it's history and polices back to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans. If you ask the majority of high school teachers and college professors of history (the majority, of course, who are liberal) they will tell you that it was the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans were the party of "the little person" and therefore they were most like the Democrats of today.  Since the Democrats have tried to co-opt the idea of being for the "little person," and Jefferson was indeed a politician for the common man, the Democrats make the sizable leap that they are in line with Jefferson.

The truth is the original political party that was closest to the beliefs of the Democrat Party of today was the Federalists.  The Federalist Party believed in a strong and very powerful centralized Federal Government.  Politicians like Alexander Hamilton believed that the common person was too stupid or at least too ignorant to make the best decision possible for the country.  The Federalists believed that a group of elite, educated individuals should call the shots for the rest.  Does this sound a bit like our current President? It should.

The Democrat Party as we know it was founded in the 1830s behind politicians like Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson.  The party hit the national stage during the antebellum years, (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that is the years leading up to the Civil War).  The Democratic party was built largely with politicians in the south who staunchly supported the institution of slavery and by northern politicians who preferred to compromise on slavery.  That's right, friends, the Democrat party was the party of slavery leading up to the civil war.  The Democrats were, to one degree or another, fighting to maintain the practice of slavery!

During the Civil War, only Northern Democrats remained in the country (obviously) along with those in the Border States.  These Democrats were broken into two camps.  The first, the War Democrats, essentially were more pro-union than anti-slavery.  In 1864, these individuals actually shed the Democrat label entirely in favor of the title "Union Party." The Union Party nominated Abraham Lincoln for President in 1864 along with Andrew Johnson, a Union Party member, as their Vice Presidential Candidate (the Republican ticket also nominated Johnson, replacing Lincoln's first Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin).  The second camp, the Copperheads, essentially were a peace at whatever cost group.  Ironically, one can easily imagine our current President in that camp.

After the Civil War, the country was pretty solidly controlled by Republicans until the end of Reconstruction.  However, when Reconstruction concluded, Democrats rose to power in the south. The Democrat party was the party of Jim Crow and Segregation.  In fact, only whites were legally allowed to vote in Democratic Party primaries by law in the South for many years.

Oh, and let's not forget the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party, the Ku Klux Klan.  Bet your liberal teachers never taught you that one, did they?  But the Ku Klux Klan was the force within the Democrat party throughout the South to reduce votes for the Republican Party, and thus maintain segregation and fight Civil Rights (under the guise of States Rights).

The foundations of modern Liberalism began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal in 1933.  Granted, certain economic regulations which were instituted under the New Deal were actually quite reasonable.  While I believe such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance ought to be optional, I also believe that such programs are tolerable so long as they remain a safety net rather than a hammock. Unfortunately, Liberal Democrats moving forward began to learn that they could gain votes by continuing to provide better and better benefits at taxpayer expense, leading to the economic woes we are in now.

The problem with the New Deal is that Roosevelt seemed loathe to let some immediate problem solving programs die after the Great Depression ended.  Such was the case with Works Progress Administration which gave people in need of employment the opportunity to work as government employees. Once World War II began and jobs were available aplenty between factory jobs and military jobs, the WPA became unnecessary.  Yet FDR wanted to keep these programs running, beyond their necessity, setting the table for Liberals across the decades to keep programs running past the need for said programs.

In the 1940s-1960s as the Civil Rights movement began, it was the Democrat Party who fought Civil Rights in the South (and yet they claim Republicans are racist...huh).  With the Ku Klux Klan working behind the scenes, the Democrat Party fought to maintain the status quo (that status quo, by the way, was segregation). This was the history of the Democrat Party until the  Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 In 1963, Lyndon Johnson ascended to the Presidency after John F. Kennedy was assassinated.  Thus modern liberalism began to take hold.  President Johnson's Great Society began the policies of "the Government will care for you" that are so prevalent with the Democrat party.  Such programs like Medicare, Medicaid, the Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR) were all instituted under this program.

Think about Medicare for a moment, will you?  Every individual over 65 years old is eligible, regardless of need.  I'll give you a prime example of someone who ought not be eligible for Medicare.  My grandmother will turn 79 years old this year.  Her late husband, my grandfather, worked for the majority of his career as a supervising engineer for General Electric's Radar Division during the Cold War.  As his widow, my Grandfather maintains 50% of his pension and his benefits, including his medical insurance.  She does not need Medicare in the slightest.  She doesn't mind the paid-for flu-shots, etc, but she also need it at all.  Yet elected Liberals institute programs like it to buy votes (doesn't work on Gram, by the4 way).  

Oh, and let's not forget the War on Poverty, America's longest war (a 45 year quagmire).  Do we still have poverty?  OF COURSE WE DO!  In fact, we have MORE THAN BEFORE the War on Poverty! (2)  But, with typical liberal mindsets of the means justify the ends and the intentions outweigh the results, we're still spending billions annually on these failed programs!
Since the the New Deal and the Great Society, the Democrat Party has swung from being far, far right to being far, far Left. This fact is true.  However, the Democrat party has tried to claim that the Republicans ALSO swung from the far Left to the far Right.  Unfortunately for Democrats, this is not true.  So, let us look at the true history of the Republican Party.

History of the Republican Party

At the beginning of the history of the Democratic Party, I noted that modern Democrats would like to consider their party's earliest ideological ancestor to be Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.  However, the Democratic-Republicans believed in small government with the individual states having more individual authorities than the Federal Government (while the Federal Government maintained certain authorities which reached past the authorities of the states).  They believed in a "deserving aristocracy" , that is that the brightest and best would naturally rise to the top and therefore be elected to public office as a duty of service.  They also believed in the will of the people and that the common man could rise up out of their circumstances to improve themselves (without government assistance) through hard work.  They believed that an individual could achieve ON THEIR OWN through hard work.

This does not sound like the modern Democratic Party.  It sounds like the Republican Party.  The real one, not the false impression of Republicans that the Drive-By Media has sculpted on behalf of the Democrats.  The values of the Democratic-Republicans are the values of modern Conservatives.  Self-reliance and freedom.

The modern Republican Party was founded in 1854.  The primary issue for the Republicans was the ending of the institution of slavery.  First, the Republican Party believed in genuine freedom, that all men were created equal, and that no one ought to be enslaved.  They believed (correctly) that slavery took away the second most fundamental right of man kind, the Right to Liberty.  Abraham Lincoln famously stated, "As I would never be a slave, so I would never be a master." This fundamental principle guided the Republican Party.


Secondly, the original Republican party felt that free-market labor was superior to slave labor, because a slave had no incentive to work harder.  Indeed, slaves historically worked at the slowest possible pace they could get away with, which is completely understandable.  When an individual is working because he is forced to do so, he has no reason to work harder.  A free individual working for wages does have incentive to work hard.  His hard work can earn him raises and promotions, giving him a better life for his family.

It must be noted that yes, some individuals in the Republican Party at it's founding still did not believe people of color were equal to white people.  It has become quite chic in America to act indignant at these individuals for not being politically correct as Americans today.  This principle is foolish, because, as one of the most popular cliches in history states, hindsight is 20/20.  Further, an individual who is raised in a society which assumes the inequality of the races as a matter of certainty, it is difficult to assume instead perfect equality of all men in the sight of God.  I do not condone the inherent racism within this society as acceptable, simply as understandable. (2)  What is extraordinary, however, is the fact that a good portion of the founders of the Republican Party DID see all persons of all races as equal!


The Republican Party was founded on the concept of "free soil, free labor, free speech, free men." In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican to be elected President.  Lincoln was vociferously opposed to slavery, however he was also a pragmatist. His originally policies did allow for slavery to die of old age by restricting it to it's current locations.  However, when the Civil War reached it's second year, Lincoln realized that slavery would not die of old age, and it must instead be killed.  That summer he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  Most notably this document declared:

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free. (3)

Yes, this proclamation fell short of perfection in the modern mindset, because it allowed slavery to continue (temporarily) in those slave states which remained loyal to the Union.  However, upon victory in the Civil War, one of the very first acts performed by the Republican Party was the 13th Amendment.  The 13th Amendment was proposed and sent to the states in 1865.  It declared:


1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. (4)


Yep, that's right, it was Republicans who abolished slavery while Democrats fought it.  How about equal protection for all people under the law and universal citizenship?  That's what the 14th Amendment, also passed by Republicans, did:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (5)


Or how about the 15th Amendment, which prohibited legally prohibiting any individual who had, according to the 14th Amendment, the right to vote:

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. (6)

Southern States, lead by Democrats, found legal ways like Jim Crow Laws and general intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan, their terrorist wing, to stop blacks from voting. But Republicans did their level best on a legal level to promote the exercising of their freedom and rights for blacks.  One must remember that the politics of the time belonged primarily to local and state governments, leaving a Federal Government which was quite a bit smaller and without mass media generally unable to deal with this violations of rights.  It was the Republican Party at the turn of the century which lead to reasonable government regulations to protect the quality of food, improve sanitation and living conditions.

Moving to the Civil Rights Act, we reach a major turn in the history of the Republican party, because the Republicans achieved, legislatively, that which they had fought for since the party's inception.  It was the Republican Party that broke the fillabuster of Senator Robert Byrd (yep, Robert Byrd, who by the way was the leader of a branch of the Mississippi Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and 50s) to bring the Civil Rights Act to a vote.  As I stated above, Republicans passed the law in Congress by a rate of about 80% in the House and 82% in the Senate.

This is the point in history where most liberals will tell you the parties "switched."  It's bunk.  The Republicans stayed pretty much in the same place for their existence.  The Democrats made a huge swing from right to left, moving to the left of where the Republican Party stood.

Republicans, on the other hand, achieved a the legislative goals which the party set out to achieve.  As far as legal action was concerned, between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down segregation (lead by Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren, by the way), all that could be done legislatively had been done.  Recognizing that laws cannot force people to change their hearts and minds, Republicans moved their goals to conserving the freedom and rights which the founding fathers intended and the 110 years of the Republican Party had achieved.

So What Does it All Mean?

For starters, Democrats don't like their history too much.  Who would?  Meanwhile, the history of the Republican Party embodies everything the Democrat Party would like people to believe they embody.  The Democrat spin machine has spent years trying to call Republicans racist in an effort to not only maintain their government plantation of liberal voters by continuing to allow voters to vote themselves benefits (paid for by other people's money) but also to maintain their stronghold on some minorities in America due to the same.

Make no mistake about it, the Democrat party is also still seeking what it has always sought: control.  People to accept that they are the "best and brightest" and therefore allow them to rule.  Democrats continue to tell minorities that they can't achieve on their own, but rather that they need the government to take care of them.  Republicans continue to tell minorities that "YOU can do it, you don't need government to do it for you!" The GOP believes each individual, regardless of color, creed, gender can achieve whatever their skills and hard work allows them to achieve.  Democrats believe that  people need government help, especially minorities.  So who's the racist?

Sorry, Democrats, but what preceded what your real history.  If the party has changed it's ways, fine.  But your history is your history.  You cannot pass off your poor history on the Republican Party.  The Republican Party stands for and has always stood for freedom and for individual rights.  That is who we were when we were founded, and that is who we are now.  We became "Conservative" only after we achieved legislatively exactly what we set out to achieve: equal protection and liberty under the law. Only then did we fight to maintain what we achieved.  Republicans, this is who we really are.  And Democrats, this is at least who your party was in the past. Accept it. Change your future if you like.  Don't try to steal the Republicans history as your own!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Civil Rights Act of 1964

(2) The War on Poverty (Chart)

(3) I consider myself blessed to have been born in the late 20th Century so that I could live in a world   where I was taught from birth that skin color is simply a physical trait and that it has as much bearing on the value of a person as eye color.  I believe this was the ideal set by the Founding Fathers, that all men are created completely equal.  Unfortunately, it took us about two hundred years to achieve that ideal.  

(4) The Emancipation Proclamation

(5) 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

(6) 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

(7) 15th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Barrack Obama: The Unconstitutional President

No, this isn't a birther post.  I'm not about to question whether or not Obama is a natural-born citizen because quite frankly it's a waste of breath.  Whether he is or he isn't, the Drive-By Media isn't going to give enough scrutiny to the question to make it worth spending time on.  Besides, the President has done enough other things outside the Constitution to fill at least one good blog post, not to mention to warrant a serious discussion of impeachment.


The word "impeachment" gets thrown around an awful lot by bloggers and activists on both the left and the right.  Too many Americans seem to think that impeaching a President is, in effect, a national recall of a President performed by Congress.  It isn't.  Our founding fathers were quite wise to make the shortest term of office on the national level be two years.  Such a term guards against the general fickleness of people in general who would be quick to change representatives the moment said representative supported any bill that wasn't overwhelmingly supported by the voters.  The misunderstanding of impeachment was further advanced by the Drive-By Media in 1998-99 when President Clinton was impeached.


The average man on the street, to this day, seems to believe Clinton was impeached for having an extramarital affair. He wasn't.  History lesson: An investigation was launched about that affair and President Clinton was questioned under oath about it.  You can argue the validity of said investigation, but irregardless, once under oath, President Clinton was required to tell the truth.  He did not.  For committing the felony of perjury, Clinton was impeached.


Yet President Obama has made Clinton's crime of perjury seem like a six-year old stealing a Milky Way from Rite Aid.  President Obama has violated the Constitution not once, not twice, not three, but now four times!  He seems to believe the Constitution as simply an obstacle to be overcome.


First, when  U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman struck down the President's moratorium on deep water drilling, the President ignored the injunction and simply reissued a new executive order to replace it.  For this, Judge Martin Feldman declared the President to be in contempt of court. (1) This, for the record, is a felony.


Secondly, when U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vincent declared the President's Healthcare Law to be Unconstitutional and declared the entire law void, the President continued to enforce a law which was, by law, no longer valid.  The President had the audacity to ask the Judge to clarify his ruling. (3) Because "this law is Unconstitutional and therefore voided" is unclear.


Thirdly, President Obama, last week, committed troops to an open ended military engagement with zero goals in mind without consulting Congress.  The President did go tho the United Nations, mind you, but not the United States Congress.  He then proceeded to write them a letter "informing them" of the military actions already in progress.


But Chris, doesn't the War Powers Resolution of 1973 give the President the ability to commit troops for up to 60 days without Congressional approval?  Answer: The letter of that law does indeed give that ability to the President. But the precedent set by Presidents Reagan, Bush (41) Clinton, and Bush (43) also demonstrate that in such instances the President must still obtain a fresh War Powers Authorization from Congress.  When Reagan went into Grenada, he had a War Powers Act.  When George H.W. Bush began Operation Desert Storm, he had a formal declaration of war.  When Clinton began Operation Desert Fox, he had a War Powers Act.  When George W. Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq, he had formal declarations of war.


The Constitution remains quite clear that it is Congress which has the authority to declare war, not the President, in Article I Section 8 (Line 11) of that esteemed document. Granted, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 does muddy the waters a bit, making it a gray area in that it's hard to call for impeachment over it's use in this situation.  Yet Presidential precedent is clear on the application of the law.  Unfortunately, Mr. Obama does not care to listen to the Constitution on this matter either.


Fourthly, let's not forget President Obama's appointment of Czars. The Constitution of the United States clearly lays out the requirements for Presidential Appointment of cabinet members, judges and other individuals with official authority in the United States:


(The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. United States Constitution Article II Section 2 (Line 2)





Notice that nowhere in this power is the President granted the right to create new offices on his own and invest them with official power over various departments of the Government.  Granted, this requirement is not placed upon Presidential advisers such as his Press Secretary and his National Security Advisor.  However, these individuals do not have official headship over any part of the government but rather serve specifically as Presidential advisers.  National Security Advisor is not a military rank .  Secretary of Defense is a military rank (the 2nd highest rank in the military, behind Commander in Chief), and because of that authority, must be confirmed by the Senate.


Article II of the United States Constitution and I'm afraid I cannot find the part where it says "the President may appoint whomever he wants to positions of authority within the government without Senate approval."  (For those of you from Palm Beach County, Florida, that's because IT'S NOT THERE.)


President Obama has overreached his Constitutional authority with these unconstitutional czars.  He has overreached his authority with the military actions in Libya.  He has ignored Article III of the Constitution and the principle of judicial review of all laws, both with the overturning of Obamacare and with the reissuing of his deep water drilling moratorium after it was struck down. He has failed his Presidential oath of office:


"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The United States Constitution, Article II Section I (Line 11)


President Obama has not preserved, protected, and defended the Constitution.  He has ignored it on at least four occasions, and that included committing a felony (contempt of court).  A felony is what the Constitution speaks of when it mentions "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a cause for impeachment. (For those of you from Palm Beach, high crimes = felonies.)  The President has failed to uphold the Constitution.


To the United States House of Representatives, your Constitutional obligation is clear.  Mr. Obama has rendered himself unfit to be President by his actions.  You must vote to impeach President Obama for these Constitutional violations. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(1) Judge Holds Interior in Contempt of Court Over Deep Water Drilling Ban


(2) Florida Judge Rules Health Care Reform Unconstitutional


(3) Obama WH to Vinson: Please tell states to obey law you just struck down


(4) The United States Constitution, Article II

Liberal Poll Doctoring Makes Obama Look Stronger

For reader ease, I have linked all the polls and stories herein BOTH in line and at the bottom of the page.

I was having a lively but friendly debate today on twitter with a Liberal.  Background: I sent out a link to a CNN Poll that stated that 59% of Americans want Obamacare repealed while only 37% oppose it. (1) We proceeded to debate whether or not this number was valid, because, in this person's opinion, that 59% includes a good amount of people who believe the law doesn't do enough. We then discussed how much could be validly claimed as part of the poll.

At one point the individual who was debating with sent me a link to a Pew Research Poll which was titled "Obama Tests Well at Start of Reelection Run." (2)   The poll's results stated that 47% would support President Obama over 37% who would support a Generic Republican Candidate.  Ignoring the fact that Person with a Name vs. Unnamed Person polls are quite rarely accurate, I found, buried deep within the poll, a HUGE flaw: the polling sample.

Unfortunately, I was note able to find statistics of the percentages of people who consider themselves Republican, Democrat, and Independent.  (This is likely because only 27 states have no such party registration as part of their voter registration.)  So I will instead use the numbers for Conservatives, Liberals, and Moderates.  These groups won't perfectly translate, but I think it's fair to say that it will be a reasonable comparison.

In December of 2010, a Gallup Poll showed that 40% of Americans considered themselves to be Conservative, 35% considered themselves to be Moderate and 21% considered themselves to be Liberal.  I grant you, some Moderates will be Democrats and some Moderates will be Republican, and there are some Conservative Democrats and some Liberal Republicans.  So I will grant you an even split for the sake of argument. I think it is reasonable to believe that, at best, the split of registered voters would be approximately even, with about 33% Republican, 33% Democrat and 33% Independent as a safe, reasonable baseline. (For the record, this is the typical baseline for national polling with reputable organizations like Gallup and Rasmussen.)

However in this poll, the numbers were quite skewed.  The poll consisted of 1392 registered voters.  For starters using registered voters instead of likely voters is a good way to skew polling.  According to Politico, in 2010 approximately 60% of registered voters actually voted. (4)  That means 40% of the people polled are not likely to show up.  (By the way, historically, when you go from registered voters to likely voters, Republicans usually gain 3-5%.)  So there's that.

Far more egregious, however, is the skew of the sample of voters.  Of the 1392 people polled, 507 identified themselves as Independents (37%), 503 identified themselves as Democrats (32%) and 382 (25%) considered themselves Republicans. That's a full 7% more Democrats than Republicans and 12% more Independents than Republicans! 

The skew is absolutely ridiculous.  Friends, at best, this is a poor poll and at worst, this is a cooked poll. I urge you strongly to look at the poll samples in every poll you read, if your time allows. Rasmussen and Gallup are usually pretty reliable, and even the much maligned Fox News is pretty good about having a reasonable party split for their polls.  But Pew, CNN, and others frequently skew their polling sample Democrat in an effort to obtain the result they want.  It's sad, but it's true.  As Ronald Reagan would say, facts are stubborn things!

My point is twofold.  First, as I've just said, please take the time to read the polling samples on every poll you read. Failure to do so will cause you to fall prey to the Drive-By Media's habit of cooking the polls to make Democrats look better in an effort to dishearten Republicans and Conservatives.  Secondly, PLEASE do not buy into this "Obama will be tough to beat in 2012" rhetoric by the media.  As I've said before, if the GOP runs a real, Constitutional Conservative, we very well ought to win. So get to your Tea Parties and 912 Projects and keep fighting the good fight.  Think we can't beat Obama in 2012?  To quote a political adversary, yes we can!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Hot Air:  CNN poll shows ObamaCare just as popular as ever one year later

(2)  Pew Poll: Obama Tests Well at Start of Reelection Run

(3) Conservatives Continue to Outnumber Moderates, Liberals in 2010

(4) Politico: That huge voter turnout? Didn't happen.

On Libya, Obama Goes to UN but Bypasses Congress?

Saturday, President Obama announced that the United States would join a coalition of nations to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya.  I'll be honest, I haven't had time to do sufficient research to offer my final opinion on the no-fly zone itself or it's enforcement by the United States, so I won't take a position as of yet on that.  Also, if you read my blog on Friday, you know what I think about President Obama's announcing that we wouldn't send ground troops. (1)  However, regardless of you personally feel about the military action that the United States is undertaking, it must be noted that President Obama has ONCE AGAIN egregiously ignored the Constitution of the United States, and that is unacceptable.

To be sure, the President was absolutely certain to go the United Nations to gain the "international support" he spent years blasting President George W. Bush for not obtaining before actions in Iraq (since apparently Italy, Poland and Great Britain don't qualify as international support by Obama's definition).  Yet he neglected to follow the Constitution of the United States!  The Constitution of the United States Article I Section 8 SPECIFICALLY gives the right to declare war to Congress.

(Congress shall have the power) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. (2)

That means the President is Constitutionally required to obtain Congressional approval (via either declaration of war or by authorization via a War Powers Act).  For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means the President can't just go to war.  Congress has to agree with him before starting military action.

But wait, Chris, isn't the President the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military?  Correct.  President is indeed the highest rank in the United States Military.  But let's see what the Constitution says about this aspect of the Presidency:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. (3)


All this says is "the President is Commander in Chief." It doesn't say he can use the military at his pleasure.  Article I Section 8 of the Constitution makes that clear. The President MUST obtain the approval of Congress to utilize the United States military!  Period.

Yet our President doesn't seem to think this is true.  Ignoring the fact that the President sat on his hands until after France, of all countries, took the lead.  France, the nation whose battle flag is all white, took the lead while the rest of the world sat there, waiting for America to lead  Then, Mr. Obama agreed to support the international coalition in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya.  Again, I don't necessarily disagree with the action, and with the proper authorization from Congress, he is within his rights to do so. The problem is that the President needed to get a War Powers Resolution from Congress and he has shown absolutely zero intent to do so.

Anyone know where the "the President shall utilize the United States Military with the approval of the United Nations" section of the Constitution is located?  What?  It's not there?  Darn right.  This President has once again failed the Constitutional requirements of his office.  He has refused to enforce a law which was duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President and he has been declared to be in contempt of court over his deep water drilling moratorium. He has broken the law three times, all three of which are a violation of the United States Constitution.

Once again, the President of the United States has shown blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States, all the while yielding the sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations.  The President has blatant disregard for the powers that lawfully belong to him.  To Barrack Obama, the Constitution seems to be a hurdle to be overcome so that he can do whatever he deems worth doing. This has been proven repeatedly.

I've said this before and I will say it again.  The President has committed legitimate impeachable offenses and I believe it is time for the House of Representatives to draw up Articles of Impeachment against him.  Nobody is above the law, not even the President. The Constitution is the law of our land, not the President's personal desires.  Once again, I do not suggest impeachment without great consideration, especially in light of the fact that many of my counterparts on the left threw that word around like it was their job while George W. Bush was President. I believe that impeachment is to be used in the rarest of circumstances when the law has been broken.  I also believe that the President has once again disregarded the Constitution of the United States, failing his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." For this reason, I say again, the President should be impeached.

ADDENDUM:

President Obama just sent this letter to Congress


In this letter, President Obama did in fact contact Congress to inform them of his reasoning for committing our nation to combat in Libya.  Technically he is living within the standards of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.  

HOWEVER, precedent exists that each military action requires a fresh War Powers Resolution by Congress.  That precedent exists since 1973 that Presidents obtain a fresh War Powers Resolution from Congress in such an instance, as was fulfilled by both President Reagan with Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and President Clinton with Operation Desert Fox in Iraq. President George H.W. Bush in Operation Desert Storm and President George W. Bush in Operation Iraqi Freedom, for all intents and purposes, had full declarations of war.

What each of these Presidents have done, which Obama has not done, is seek the official approval of Congress.  Obama has not.  I must maintain that the President failing to consult Congress as the Constitution requires is an impeachable offense.  For the third time, President Obama has failed his Oath of Office.

I must also maintain that the President subordinating the United States to the United Nations on this matter is inexcusable.  Making this identical action two to three weeks ago would have likely helped tip the scales in the favor of the Libyan Rebels.  Now it may be too little, too late.  The President needs to lead, or get out of the way so that America can have a strong leader in the White House!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Obama's Foreign Policy Weakness Shows on Libya

(2) United States Constitution, Article I Section 8 (Line 11)

(3) United States Constitution, Article II Section 2 (Line 1)

Obama's Foreign Policy Weakness Shows on Libya

Today President Obama, while addressing the unrest in Libya, stated unequivocally that the United States would not deploy ground troops in Libya.  I knew you had no clue about how to lead in world affairs, but for crying out loud, what are you thinking, Mr. Obama?  Anyone else dying to play a high stakes game of poker with the President after that remark?

I'm not suggesting we should commit troops in Libya.  That's a last resort which we haven't reached yet.  But in what world is it smart to state up front that we won't commit troops?  Obama has just removed any ability to bluff with Quadaffi.  I'm playing poker tomorrow, and you better believe if after the river there are three spades showing I'm not going to announce that I don't have two additional spades in my hand (1).  Depending on my position in the game, I may well raise the pot to make people THINK I might have two spades in my hand.

Yet our Commander-in-Chief has chosen to stand up, announce that he doesn't have two spades.  Our President clearly has no clue how to lead on the world stage.  I understand he subscribes to the wimpy Liberal can't we all just get along mentality on paper.  But today we learned  he ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT HOGWASH!  Even the aspirin-factory-bombing Bill Clinton didn't outright announce that the U.S. wouldn't use troops.  Why?  Because when negotiating with a despot you don't announce that you aren't willing to remove them from power.  It's the one thing that you can frighten almost every dictator on earth with.  Obama just forfeited that.  It doesn't take a Harvard degree to figure that out, just an ounce of common sense (which our President does not seem to be able to muster).

If this wasn't enough, Obama has also announced that America will not lead as the U.N. moves forward in Libya.  Meanwhile, the rest of the world is saying, "Wait...what? So who's going to lead us?"  Great Britain doesn't want to lead it.  France will just surrender, Japan doesn't have a military (they have us instead), Germany barely has a military (see also: Japan), the Russian military remains in shambles after losing the Cold War to us, China might do it but the rest of the world are still too smart to give the Chi-Comms that kind of power.  Canada?  Nothing more fierce than three mounties in a canoe leading an attack into the desert. Let's face it...America is absolutely the only country to lead in such an instance.  Yet our President wants to abdicate, probably because he's too darn timid to take the lead.

Friends, this President is weak.  He's too afraid to make the wrong decision and too narcissistic to ask for help.  Meanwhile, the world burns.  We need a real President.  Someone who has the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what's right and to lead the world as the world looks to America for leadership.  Barrack Obama isn't it!  2012 can't come fast enough!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For those who do not play Texas Hold 'Em, this is the point where five common cards have been dealt, along with two individual cards in each player's hand.  The goal is to create the best possible five card hand using your two individual cards and the five common cards. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, Texas Hold 'Em is a type of poker game.)

Keep Separate Scorecards for Tea Party, RINOs

Tea Party Conservatives like me have begun to get a bit frustrated at the behavior of certain Republicans in the House and Senate.  It seems a lot of them want to keep playing the old games of compromise.  Some RINOs (that's Republicans in Name Only for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) have gone back to accepting the Democrat/Liberal "compromise, work together, blah blah" dichotomy, leading to more moderate, watered down Republican policy.  These individuals need every ounce of scrutiny we can direct toward them.

However, it is important that we are careful not to backlash on the people who are standing for what they ran on.  The Marco Rubios, the Rand Pauls, the Michelle Bachmans of the world aren't standing down.  On a level local to me, Congresswoman Anne Marie Buerkle is another who is doing what she was elected to do. (Unfortunately, I'm not in her district...I somewhat wish I was...her district neighbors mine.  Related: lets see if we can get Dave Bellavia elected here in the 26th District!)  It is incredibly important that we fight for those Tea Party favorites who are doing what they were elected to do. 

If anyone thought that RINOs were going to lose their horns, guess what, you were wrong.  I'll admit it, I was one of them.  I was hoping that the Tea Party patriots who were swept into power in 2010 would knock some sense into the party-line Republicans.  To some degree it worked. For all his tears, I think Speaker Boehner has done his best to get things done and otherwise has stayed out of the way of Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus while she gets more done.  Ditto for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. I believe these are the types who were never RINOs, just giving it their best with what they thought they could achieve. (1)  You can spot these individuals as the ones who have embraced the Tea Party movement as a way to FINALLY vote their conscience.

There are others though who want to keep playing by the same rules, by the same losing compromise standard.  These are the same Republicans who have made a great minority and a lousy majority.  People like John McCain (who, by the way, I'd still rather have as President than Obama...but less than nearly any potential candidate in '12) keep wanting to play by the old rules.  The same old rules that meant the GOP got 50% of what they want when we're in power and 0% when Democrats in power while giving the Democrats 50% of what they want as the minority and 100% as the majority, all in the name of all-mighty compromise. (2)  These people need to go bye-bye in 2012 and 2014.  We need to find Tea Party candidates to replace them as we did in '10 with other RINOs.  Or pressure them to retire, which shouldn't be hard because the average age of these individuals is 147 years, 5 months and 23 days, give or take a minute.

Yet we need to be sure we don't start calling for the Tea Party to be a third party.  I know it sounds great, but I don't think I'm alone in the world in realizing that a third party movement could end up being the worst idea since Greedo shooting first.  Tea Party becomes a third party, get ready for 30 years of Democrat rule.  Trust me.  The last third party to win the Presidency and a majority in Congress WAS the Republican Party, and the candidate was named Lincoln.  For the record, in those days, it wasn't unusual to see four to five major candidates in a Presidential election.  It's hardly the case now.  If you're one of the people who wants to believe that it's worth the time it would take to replace the GOP, please realize my friends we cannot AFFORD to let the Democrats have 30 years in power while the new, third party Tea Party establishes itself!

What needs to happen is for those of us on the ground in Tea Parties across the country to keep fighting hard to replace RINOs with genuine Constitutional Conservatives so the Tea Party can BECOME the Republican Party.  It's going to take three to five more elections, mind you.  We need to be constantly vigilant so to continue to remove the RINOs in favor of the Tea Party.  We need to be careful to get in the ears of ALL Republicans so we can figure out WHICH ONES are the RINOs and which ones are Conservatives giving their best.  The former we need to work through the legislative process to replace.  The latter need to be shown that we will back them, that they won't get kicked to the curb electorally for Conservative values.

It's not the exciting solution but it's also the solution that will work.  If we remain vigilant, the Tea Party WILL BE the Republican Party. It's the best thing we can do. Or we can ensure 30 years of Democrat control while the new, independent Tea Party becomes the official second party.  The choice is yours.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) RINOs? Or Conservatives Giving Their Best?


(2) Civility and Compromise: Only Expected When Democrats Out of Power...

Shortest Books Ever Written

Just something for fun as a break from the big project I'm working on for the site.  If you have any more great "Shortest Books Ever Written" please leave them in comments and if I like them I'll add them in, along with your Twitter handle, website, etc.

My Move to the Center by Barrack Obama

Bad Times to Pull the Race Card by Jesse Jackson

Major Crisises that We Didn't Blame on Conservatives by the Liberal Media

Living Up to Dr. King's Dream by Al Sharpton

Things I Wouldn't Say or Do to Get Elected by Bill Clinton

Quotes Attributed to Rush Limbaugh that Rush Limbaugh Actually Said by the Liberal Media

Scientific Evidences for Global Warming by Al Gore

Successes of the Great Society by Lyndon B. Johnson

Civility and Compromise at Work by Nancy Pelosi

Major Crisises That We LEGITIMATELY Blamed on Conservatives by the Liberal Media

Developing a Championship Team through the Minor Leagues by George Steinbrenner

Economic Successes of Socialism by Barrack Obama

Successes of Liberal Talk Radio by Air America

Women I Find too Ugly to Sleep with by Bill Clinton
GOP Presidential Nominees Whose "Turn" it was that Won the Presidency by the Republican National Committee

Tina Fey Quotes We Didn't Attribute to Sarah Palin by the Liberal Media

Compassionate Results of Liberal Programs by the Democratic Party

Nice Things We Said About Reagan while he was Alive by the Liberal Media

Everything I Know About Business by Barrack Obama (Submitted by @politicsarcasm on Twitter)

American Patriotism by Barrack Obama (Submitted by @politicsarcasm on Twitter)

Liberal Talk Radio without Being Bitter and Angry by Janine Garaffalo

My Romance with Bill by Hillary Clinton

Interesting Things About Me by Al Gore

My Qualifications to be President by Barrack Obama

Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Not and Will Not Succeed

Liberals have been stepping it up recently their cries to fix our deficit problems in states and on the federal level with the same solution this bunch has been promoting for years, "tax the rich."  Between cries at protests and dear old Michael Moore stating that the money owned by the wealthy is a "natural resource," (1) we've been bombarded by the same pie-in-the-sky easy solutions which require no sacrifice from those who cry for it.  Just tax someone else more, because "they can afford it", then all our troubles will be solved.

I've gone into great detail on the immorality of simply soaking those in our society who produce and succeed for more tax revenue (2) as well as the fiscal failures of those policies and the fiscal successes of reduced tax rates as it pertains to both the economy and to actual net tax revenue (3).  For now, however, I'm going to set these issues aside as I continue to present a preponderance of evidence against these policies over time to instead point a logical fallacy which continues amongst liberals. Buckle up, friends, because we're about to take a trip to a place I like to call The Real World!

Warning:  Entrance into The Real World requires you to consider consequences of all actions.  In The Real World, every action has a consequence. We cannot, and will not, pretend that by instituting a particular fiscal policy, nothing will happen save for the targeted goals of the policy.  You've been warned.

Let's pretend that you are a business owner.  You own the Acme Widget factory, a company that provides fine quality widgets, cogs and sprockets to 10% of all businesses in your state.  Your business employs 500 individuals with an average salary of $45,000 per year (4), giving you a payroll $22.5 Million annually.  That means your company's employees pay the federal government approximately $5.625 Million each year in taxes (5).  Let's also pretend that your state has a 10% state income tax, meaning that your employees pay that state $2.25 Million in taxes to that state.  This company's gross revenue is $40 Million each year (6). The company's building costs, operating costs, benefits costs, complying with federal regulations, etc comes to $12.5 Million. The company is making a reasonable net profit (7) on the widgets, cogs and sprockets of $5 Million each year, a 12.5% profit, while employing 500 people and paying those people a salary which pays $11.25 Million each year in aggregate tax revenue to the Federal and State government toward the things the government is currently funding (8). 

Let us now pretend that the state government decides to place a 10% tax on the corporate value of all businesses within that state in an effort to close a state budget deficit.  The Acme Widget Company is now assessed a $4 Million annual tax as a result.   As the owner, you conclude that your company needs to continue making a 12.5% profit for it to be worth having a business. After all, you didn't open this company just to give people jobs and benefits.  You took a risk that you could create widgets, cogs and sprockets for more money that it costs to produce. Each year you put up $40 Million and end up with $45 at the end of the year. But now your PROFITS are being cut not 10% but 80% as a result of this tax, because taxes are based not on profit but on the total worth of the company.

You now have some options.  In order to maintain profitability, you can lay off some workers.  Laying off 100 employees will close the gap. If you do that, however, you are now removing THEIR tax revenue from the state and federal government because they are no longer receiving a paycheck.  Thus the loss to state government is $1,000,000 in tax revenue, meaning government's net gain in funding ISN'T $4 Million, it's now $3.6 Million due to the lack of tax revenue from your now unemployed workers.

You are also now making 20% less widgets, cogs and sprockets for the businesses who use them, but that's okay because those companies have also had to lay off workers to help keep THEIR company profitable due to this new tax, which leads to the unemployment of 10% of their employees and the loss of THEIR tax revenue.One of your clients, for example, the Johnson Air Conditioner Company, is now producing 10% fewer air conditioners and are now having to charge more per air conditioner to maintain THEIR profitability, causing the cost of a unit to go up.  This in turn causes sales of air conditioners to drop 10% because people at a certain level decide to go without. This leads to Sears employing less air conditioner salesmen, and the subsequent loss of THEIR tax revenue.  Oh, and don't forget, since your company now has 20% fewer workers, you're company is now producing 20% less and bringing in 20% less profits which reduces your company's total gross income which reduces the total tax receipts the state is receiving from you, because the tax is a percentage.  If the gross revenue of your company drops, so does the amount you are paying in taxes.

All of a sudden, there is less money coming into the government than before.  They intended to close a deficit, but instead ended up eliminating taxpayers and causing less revenue to come in.  To deal with their mounting deficits, they decide to raise taxes on corporations again and the process begins anew.

See, here in the Real World, we don't pretend that all economic decisions have static consequences.  We recognize that the person who is taxed will do something to compensate instead of just taking the loss.  And, of course, there is one other thing this business can decide to do. They can decide to move their company all together!  Perhaps they decide to move their company to a state like Florida where there is no corporate tax and no state income tax! So now your state isn't just losing 20% of the employees' tax revenue they receive but now they are losing 100% of revenue, $2.25 Million each year, in tax revenue from that company.

Or maybe, as the owner of the Acme Widget Company, you decide that the taxes on both the state and federal level are ridiculous, so you decide to pull the company out of America entirely and set up shop in Mexico.  You are free to do that, government cannot stop you from it. Now, between the federal and state governments, there is a loss of $12.25 Million in tax revenue because every single employee of your company is no longer paying taxes because they don't have a job at the Acme Widget Company.  Further, because Acme is no longer there to supply your widget, cog and sprocket needs, Johnson Air Conditioner has to find a new supplier which costs them 20% more in parts.  In order to maintain their profit margins, Johnson has to lay off some employees, produce less air conditioners, raise their prices, and the cycle begins again.

You see, the problem with Liberal Economic policy is that it is based upon unrealistic expectations of the reactions of the business owners.  The people who instituted this 10% corporate tax expected to simply receive $4 Million in additional tax revenue but instead caused a chain reaction which removed part or all of the tax revenue this company was creating through it's employees taxes.  The owners of this business are free people.  They are not serfs of the land required to remain in the state that they are currently located or the nation they are currently located. The numbers in my example may be arbitrary but the reactions of the business are not.  This is what has happened and what does happen when business taxes are increased.

Those of us who live in the Real World don't have the luxury of pretending that these businesses will simply decide to eat the loss, make less profit and continue to provide the same products in the same quantities and continue to employ the same number of people.  It's not really going to happen, and there's no way government can force them to do it.

Friends, the above example explains why Capitalism is the only financial system that works while still protecting the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals.  Socialism and Communism require either people to act contrary to their nature and be 100% selfless without any consideration to consequences to themselves, or employing a command government which takes away rights.  For Communism to NOT take away any person's rights, individuals have to willing take less in an effort for the greater good.  This is inherently contrary to human nature. 

People under most circumstances do not intentionally harm themselves in order to help others.  There are certain, very noble exceptions like military service.  To those of you who have served our country in this capacity, thank you for keeping us free.  I appreciate you more than you could know.  Yet we must note that that sacrifice is in order to protect those other individuals rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The vast majority of people do not intentionally harm themselves to ensure that government can continue spending and spending and spending.  If they would, we wouldn't have deficits in government, and these Liberal economic policies would've worked previously when they have been tried.  They haven't.  Also, no amount of harping and scolding by Liberals has lead to these employers and producers to wanting to do themselves financial harm.  Once again, since you can't force them to, we are at an impasse.

Furthermore, for these policies to be successful, one must also expect Government to behave responsibly.  History has shown that an unchecked, irresponsible government that gets used to spending 50% more than they take in in revenue will continue to spend proportionally as they see an increase in revenue.  I have given the example before of the Reagan years.  Under Reagan, net tax receipts (that's the total amount money in dollars and cents received in taxes by the Federal Government for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) doubled. Deficits, however, expanded.  Since revenue doubled, plain old fashioned logic tells us that the problem wasn't insufficient revenue...we had twice what we had before!  Had government simply MAINTAINED it's spending levels, we would have had a balanced budget.  Yet government did not spend less.  They spent $1.80 for every $1 that was brought in...the exact same proportional spending they had spent before the increased revenue.

At that time, government was used to spending 180% of tax revenue.  Today, government is spending about 200% of what it takes in, requiring us to borrow the same amount that we take in in taxes.  The problem is government is used to spending twice what they bring in as tax revenue.  History has shown us that government, left unchecked, will not spend less with more money.  They will simply increase spending on par with the increases and the problem continues.  In fact, it becomes proportionally larger!

However, there is another side to this concept. What if Government decides to CUT taxes on these businesses. Let's say we keep the same basic numbers. Again, you own the Acme Widget factory, a company that provides fine quality widgets, cogs and sprockets to 10% of all businesses in your state. Your business employs 400 individuals with an average salary of $45,000 per year, giving you a payroll $18 Million annually. Your company's annual worth is now $39 Million.  Your company is paying a 10% corporate tax to the state at $3.9 Million.  You're making the same 12.5% profit on your investment, a net profit of $3.75 Million.  Suddenly a Conservative state legislature and a Conservative Governor take office.  They want to create a good climate for business in your state.  They permanently repeal that 10% corporate tax. 

Since you are a good businessman, you realize that your business now has $3.9 million in new capital for the next year.  You could pocket that $3.9 Million and spend it on whatever you like, at which point everything you buy is going into the economy because someone has to make the product you buy or provide the service you buy.  You could stick that money in the bank where your bank uses that money to give loans to other people to buy a home or a car or to start their own business.  You could invest it in other companies via the stock market.  Under any circumstances, that money is working in the economy.  But perhaps instead you decide that you could invest that money into your own business. So you invest that money right into your business. 

For starters, you hire 85 people in order to produce more widgets, cogs and sprockets.  Because you have more people on the job you can make more widgets, cogs and sprockets every day.  So you figure you can now sell those widgets, cogs and sprockets for less a piece so you can undercut your competition and gain market share.So now your price is lower than the widgets, cogs and sprockets company down the street.  More businesses buy their widgets, cogs and sprockets from you because of your great prices. Business rises another 10%, so now you have 10% more revenue ($4 Million more).  Since the last reinvestment into your business was so successful, you decide to invest that money into the company as well.  You hire 85 more people at $45,000 per year which causes you to produce more, sell each widget, cog and sprocket at less, allowing you to lower your prices.

All of a sudden, more people are working.  At this stage you've hired a total of 170 new people at $45,000 per year.  Each of those new hires who you are now paying $45,000 per year are paying 10% in state income tax for a total of $7.65 Million in new tax revenue.  That's more than you were paying in corporate tax...nearly twice!  Let's not forget that these employees, who were previously unemployed, now have more disposable income.  They're more likely to go out to eat, to buy a new car, to go on vacation.  Someone has to make and serve that dinner, someone has to make that car and sell that car and service that car, someone has to book that vacation, someone has to fly the plane to the vacation, someone is a flight attendant, someone has to work the desk at the hotel.

I'm not making this stuff up.  This is what historically happens when the producers in the world have new capital available to put into their business.  The majority of large business owners with successful businesses see their business as a sound investment. If their business is steadily turning a 12.5% profit, they believe that they can, over time, increase whatever new money they now have by 12.5% over time.  And remember, even if they do keep that money for themselves it still goes to work in the economy.  The only place where money doesn't go to work for the health of the economy is in the hands of government, because government spends without producing anything.

Once you look at economic policies based upon the results and the reasonably expected consequences of those actions, it becomes crystal clear what the best plans.  The good intentions of liberal polices cannot be logically expected to come to fruition.  It's just not reasonable to expect.  Economic policy consequences don't happen in Ideal World, where Liberals think up these policies.  Economic policy consequences occur in The Real World. 

So let me ask you something:  In the Real World (where you do in fact reside), what set of economic policies are going to yield a robust, growing economy with low unemployment?  Good.  Now if you want a healthy, robust economy, I think we both know what way you should be voting.  Vote for good results, not for good intentions.  Because compassion of result is what really matters, not compassion of intent!  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Michael Moore Thinks Wealthy People's Money Is A 'Natural Resource' And Should Be Shared

(2) It's Not the Government's Money: Why how much money a person has DOES NOT MATTER
     by Christopher C. Bastedo

(3) Conservatives are the Center by Christopher C. Bastedo

(4) Average Salary.  Some make less, some more.

(5) Based upon an average Federal tax rate of 15% on the average salary of $45,000 per year

(6) Gross Revenue = All Revenue Brought in Over One Year

(7) Net Profit = Gross Revenue - All Business Expenses

(8) Figure obtained by calculating 15% of payroll to Federal Tax and 10% of payroll to State Tax

On Biblical Conservatism: It's Not the Government's Job to Care for the Poor!

I've been wanting to write on this particular issue for quite some time, but the news recently in Wisconsin, our President's disregard for the Constitution, and a huge Presidential Election on the horizon has taken up most of my time.  So while there is FINALLY  a moment to bring up this fundamental issue of Biblical Conservatism:


In 2010, Republicans were swept into office in the House of Representatives, in Governors mansions across the fruited plain, and into state legislatures by a wave of voters who want the government to spend less and live within their means. Predictably, Liberals everywhere, lead by the Democratic Party, are doing their best to convince America that the Republican fiscal policies (cutting almost 1% of the Federal budget) are draconian, that they are going to force people to starve, to make Grandma eat dog food, etc. 


Beyond the demagoguery, many real, legitimate discussions have propped up between people like myself and other patriotic Americans on the Left regarding what specifically is okay to cut out of the budget, and what must be left as a legitimate role of government to provide a safety net for those who need it.  One such friend recently asked me my thoughts on the controversial "What would Jesus cut?" ads which Liberal groups have begun running.  My answer was simple:  It is not the government who Jesus wants taking care of the poor!


Before I delve into this situation, I think it is pertinent that I take this opportunity to deal with a major fallacy that far too many liberals seem to have about conservatives.  Conservatives care tremendously about the poor.  We are not a crowd of Ebeneezer Scrooges who want the poor to hurry up and die to decrease the surplus population.  Rather, we want to see the poor helped through their difficulties in a way that a) takes care of their needs but also b) provides them with the ability not to be comfortable in poverty but rather to be able to pull themselves OUT of poverty!


The problem conservatives have with the current government entitlement spending is not limited only to a lack of funds, which, for the record, is a legitimate concern, but rather with the method of that spending.   Setting aside the fact that the safety net has become a hammock, there is gross inefficiencies within that government spending. Federal entitlements spend approximately $.35 on every $1 on actual care for the needy, with about $.65 on every $1 going to bureaucracy.  Compare this to private charities.  National groups like the Salvation Army and the Rescue Mission spend approximately $.85 on every $1 on actual care for the needy.  Groups lead by other Christian denominations spend as much as $.95 on every $1 on actual care for the needy.  The difference is staggering in the quality of care that private charities can give over the government.


But there is a far deeper issue which goes into the Word of God itself, into the Holy Bible.  Would somebody please show me the "give your money to the government and have them care for the poor" verses?  What's that?  They aren't there?  The truth is the Bible requires Christians to take care of the poor, not the government! Jesus Christ did tell us to give a tithe (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL that's 10%) to the church which spiritually feeds us and to also give alms (Palm Beach Countiers, that's "offerings" or "free gifts") to the poor. That is the job of the Church of Jesus Christ!  We give freely to care for those who are in need.


There are practical advantages to this as well.  Remember the data I quoted above (private charities giving around $.85 - .95 on the $1 to the poor while government gives only $.35 on the $1)?  Do you know WHY that is the case?  Simple.  Government is spending money taken from taxpayers out of compulsion.  They have to put up barriers to try to prevent fraud.  (They're doing a horrible job of it, too.)  Christian charities are spending money given freely out of love for God and out of thankfulness for what He has given us.  We are making a financial investment into the Kingdom of God when we give tithes and offerings.  We then trust in Jesus Christ to ensure that the money is spent to help those in need. These organizations also use volunteers to a large extent, which lowers the overhead.


So when someone asks Christian Conservatives "What would Jesus cut?" you're actually asking the wrong question.  The real question I believe Jesus is asking is:  Why is government doing this at all?  Where are my followers?  Why aren't they all doing their job?  To the Christians out there, I pray that you are in a tithe covenant with God and giving to a church which is using part of those tithes for benevolence. We have been commanded by the Word of God to do so:


For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. Yet from the days of your fathers, you have gone away from My ordinances and have not kept them.


"Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD of hosts. But you said, "In what way shall we return?"  Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say," In what way have we robbed You?  In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. 


Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house. And try Me now in this, says the LORD of hosts, If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, so that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground, or shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field. - Malachi 3:6-12 (1)


We as Christians have a responsibility.  God has stated unequivocally that HE DOES NOT CHANGE.  What he required from us before, he requires from us now.  It is contingent upon us to take care of those in need, not the Government!


Now, you Liberal politicians, you're not getting a pass. You're the ones who have made the problem far worse by turning a safety net into a hammock, and for the purpose of getting yourself elected!  Let's be honest with ourselves: If the Democrat party wanted to help people long term they wouldn't be trying to make them comfortable in poverty.  Helping to bring people OUT of poverty ought to be the goal while ensuring they are able to survive until that poverty passes. The moment you make poverty comfortable and easy, people are less likely to leave it. 


Let me give you an example: EBT (Electronic Benefit Transaction) Cards replacing the traditional food stamps.  The primary reason of this is to remove the stigma of using food stamps.  Sounds nice, right?  Only if the only concern in your head is individual comfort in the moment!  Societally speaking, there SHOULD be some level of stigma in buying your food with food stamps...with other people's money, in reality. There should be pride-based incentive to NOT be using those food stamps as soon as possible.  Nor does it end there.


How about the fact that, here in New York State, the food stamps program ADVERTISES on top rated radio stations.  Ignoring the fact that the state is actually scratching a check for radio spots that start in the neighborhood of $70-250 per prime time spot. (2)  We have the government of the state of New York INFORMING PEOPLE that, even though they may believe they don't need food stamps because they are making ends meet, they might qualify anyway! 


Think about it. People who have budgets in place where they are paying all their bills and purchasing their own food are now being told they should apply for food stamps, ostensibly putting people who do not need it on the public dole so they can spend the money they were spending on food on non-necessities.  Ain't that wonderful?  Then we have more people feeling like the wonderful Democratic party is taking care of them, who will continue to vote themselves benefits rather than pay their own way. It's entitlements for votes.


Yet this problem is not the greatest issue I have with the Democrat party in the entitlement world.  The biggest problem I have is that these programs have begun to replace God with Government.  Think about it.  For centuries, people relied on the Church for their needs and relied on God. Now the Democrat Party is telling people, "You don't need God.  You don't need the Church. You can rely on us."  Where, in the past, people were turning toward the Church in times of financial need and receiving not only provision for their physical needs but also the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they are now turning to the Government for free money.  These people are being lead to a false idol to care for them, Government.


My friends, people's souls are on the line. People who are not having the opportunity in their times of need to have their needs met by God and to receive the Gospel and the opportunity to accept Jesus as their Savior.  A large portion of the problem we are in today is the fact that to far too many people, Government is their god.  Meanwhile the rest of us are paying through the nose in taxes so the Democrats can continue to buy votes with entitlements and replace God with Government.


What would Jesus cut?  Most of it.  I believe Jesus would tell us that He wants His Church to be taking care of the poor, not us paying the government to do it so the Government can replace Him.  To the Church, the message is do your job.  Tithe.  Give offerings.  YOU give them something to eat instead of the government.  Government should cut all but the safety net.  To the Democrat Party, stop usurping Christ, and let the Church be the church! 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Note: All Scriptures taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
   Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

(1) Malachi 3:6-12 (New King James Version) - Emphasis Added


(2) I work for a large national radio conglomerate . I speak a place of knowledge.  Due to my company's social media policy, I cannot speak beyond this...so I ask you trust me!

MEDIA: Obama Hard to Defeat. ME: In What World?

The latest Drive-By Media template regarding the 2012 Presidential Election has hit.  "Obama is the favorite," and "Obama will be tough to beat."  My response to the Lamestream Media is, "...and then you woke up."

This narrative began with a well-reported but out of context quote from Karl Rove recently.  Mr. Rove has said similar things on many occasions.  Here is a well, in-context quote from January:

"We've got to be careful about this. He is a slight favorite to win reelection today. I'm optimistic we can beat him, but we will lose as conservatives if we think 'Oh, he's done and finished'." (1)

Rove, of course, has never compared Obama's reelection chances in '12 to Reagan in '84.  He has simply said we need to NOT think of '12 as the Election of '80 but as the Election of '04.  But of course, the RINO Republicans are about to pull out their white flags as fast as they can.  These guys surrender faster than France. Here's the hard and fast truth:  Obama will not be easy to beat, but we OUGHT to beat him if we run the right campaign.

Don't misunderstand me, this will be work. We need to run a solid, CONSERVATIVE candidate.  The worst thing the Republican party ever runs into is the attitude that "we have to run a moderate candidate." NO.  We did not win a landslide across the country in statehouses, governorships, the House of Representatives and six new senate seats in 2010 with Moderates!  We won by giving the American people a REAL choice. 

Now to you who really believe the most important thing in the world is to elect somebody with an (R) next to their name and think that we can win if we run another "moderate," do me a favor, will you?  Tell me when the last time THAT mindset won us an election?  Answer: 1952, Eisenhower.  To those of you who think it's important to run an candidate because "it's his turn," do me a favor, will you?  Tell me the last time THAT mindset won us an election? Answer: 1968, Nixon.

Now let's list the people who have LOST elections for the GOP after it being "their turn." Ready?  Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, John McCain.  How'd they do?  Lousy?  Gee...what makes you think if we run someone like that NOW it will work?  Anybody expect this time to be different? ANYBODY? 

Please realize that "it's their turn" is not necessarily the same thing as "establishment candidate."  Ronald Reagan was the "establishment candidate" in 1980.  George W. Bush was the "establishment candidate" in 2000.  They both won twice.  So it's not about who is the "Party Darling."  It's about ideals, Conservative ideals!

Here's the reality that it is time to wake up to...the Republican Party MUST run a real conservative. Not only does real conservatism wins every single time it's been effectively communicated, but it is also the right remedy for Obama.  Liberalism has caused the mess our country is in now. 
Yes, I said it.  I won't try to blame that ALL on Obama.  Obama has just exacerbated the problem.  The problem began with Franklin D. Roosevelt, blew up into a quagmire under Lyndon Johnson, added more programs that government ought not have under Carter like the Endowment for the Arts, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and others.  Liberalism is the problem with America's fiscal house.

Spending money on programs that the Constitution and the founding fathers never intended.  I think if you had a time machine and could travel back to meet with Jefferson, Madison, Adams et al and you told them that we have a system now where citizens are paying over 50% of their income in taxes between federal, state, and local, they would be mortified. 

Perhaps more importantly, if you told those founding fathers that, in America, taxpayer dollars are now funding such things like paintings, symphonies, museums, they would have a fit!  (For the record, I enjoy art, I enjoy going to the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO) in Rochester, NY and I love going to museums.  As a matter of fact, I enjoy those things enough that I am perfectly willing to buy a ticket to hear the RPO or go to a museum.  And no, I am by no definition "rich." These are leisure activities I enjoy and am willing to spend my personal entertainment budget on.)  If the founding fathers knew that people could apply for federal grants to write a novel, or that taxpayer dollars were bailing out businesses, they would be furious!

Liberalism has brought this country into fiscal despotism.  Yes, conservative polices also cost money.  Liberals everywhere keep bringing up "the cost of two wars," or the cost of this or that military program. But those monies are being spent on CONSTITUTIONAL endeavors!  Let me quote the preamble of that very document:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (2)

Please note: "provide for the common defense." For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means not only the military, the police, the fire department.  Things that Government naturally ought to do.  Furthermore, military spending has brought this country to great wealth many times. Consider World War II.  It was World War II, and not the New Deal, that truly pulled America, pulled the entire world, out of the Great Depression.  To a small degree it was government spending, but it was government as a CONSUMER and not government as a fiscal director/stimulator.  Government purchased products like tanks, GPs (that's "Jeeps" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL - the GP stands for General Purpose Vehicle), bullets, guns, tires, etc etc etc.  And since those purchases were within Constitutional limits, no complaints from me!

What this country needs is Conservatism in both the White House and in Congress.  A Liberal congress can indeed cause great financial problems, even with a Conservative President leading the way.  Look at Reagan's record.  In his eight years, President Reagan doubled tax revenues after cutting tax rates. Unfortunately, the Democrat controlled House and Senate proceeded to spend $1.80 for every $1 brought in, because government never had a spare dollar for which they could find no use.  We need a Conservative government now....all of it.  With fiscal restraint in all branches.  If I may give a few quotes from Ronald Reagan:

"In our present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.  Government IS the problem."

"The problem is not that we tax too little, the problem is we spend too much."

We need a Republican Nominee who will live up to this belief.  We need a conservatives running for the House of Representatives, for the Senate.  That is how we beat Barrack Obama in 2012.  We give America a real choice.  We give them the chance to choose a President who will cut spending, who will cut taxes FOR EVERYONE, who will create a business climate that doesn't chase businesses out of the country to make their products worth making.

Be prepared: the Lamestream Media is going to continue to try to lie to us and make us believe that the country is "moderate" if not outright Liberal.  The nation is not moderate, and it is most definitely NOT Liberal!  As the attached 2010 poll shows, Conservatives have maintained a decent majority over moderates and double the numbers over liberals. (3)  So let's run a candidate in line with what the Republican Party is supposed to be about, one who is in line with what America wants!  We do that, I believe not only CAN we win, but I believe with all my heart we WILL win.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rove: Obama "slight favorite" in 2012

(2) The Constitution of the United States

(3) In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals