Liberal Rhetoric 101: Overgeneralization

"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!"

"The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!"


 "Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"

I'm guessing you've heard these claims, yes? It's all part of the liberal practice of taking a subject, looking at it from a great distance and boiling them down to a single common denominator while ignoring the dozens of other significant differences between the two. 

Lets consider the above three examples, shall we?

"Jihadists are right wing, as is the Tea Party!" and "The Ku Klux Klan is right wing, so is the Tea Party!" belong in the same explanation, so we'll treat them together.

The argument is based on the overgeneralized fact that "Radical Islam, the Ku Klux Klan and the Tea Party are on the political right.  While this is true, there is a matter of scale that is ignored by this comparison (please excuse the crudity of this model, it IS NOT to scale):

Note that while the Tea Party, the Ku Klux Klan and Radical Islam (as well as Monarchy, added in for comparison) are on the right wing of the spectrum. But no one who actually UNDERSTANDS the Tea Party (rather than the Drive-By Media's meme of the Tea Party) could consider it the same as the KKK or Radical Islam.

The Tea Party stands for equality and freedom FOR ALL, irregardless of race, in stark contrast to the KKK. It stands for a Constitutional Representative Republic, not a monarch, in stark contrast to monarchy. Finally, the Tea Party stands for the First Amendment's protection of Freedom of Religion, in stark contrast to Radical Islam.

The same would be true if a conservative were to attempt to claim that American Liberalism was the equivalent of Nazism (yes, the NAZI party was the NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY aka Left Wing, not right) or Communism. While these two factions do fall on the Left of the political spectrum, they are starkly farther to the Left than American Liberalism. (Comparing American Liberalism to European Socialism is a close comparison, however.)

Now for my third example:

"Jesus taught to help the poor, ergo massive government welfare is Biblical!"

While Christianity teaches us to help and provide for the poor, and liberals (at least claim) to try to help the poor using government welfare, there is a major difference in the way Jesus taught us to help the poor and how liberals try to help the poor. as I've pointed out over and over, there is no place in the Bible where Jesus said "Give your money to the government, and let the government help the poor." There's nowhere ANYWHERE in the Bible where God commands the government to care for the poor.

Even though liberals love to give the false impression that conservatives don't care about the poor, it's just not true. It's just that our plan to help the poor doesn't involve government. We believe in the Biblical model of individuals helping the poor either directly or through private charities.

All three of these examples show the liberal mentality of looking at things from only one angle, without looking at the nuances and specifics of the situations which make these supposed equivalencies not actual equivalencies.  To respond to these arguments is simple. Just take the time to break down the sheer ridiculousness of these comparisons by discussing the very nuances and specifics that make the equivalencies not equivalent.

*yes I AM quoting Back to the Future intentionally

Simplifying Conservatism: Winning Elections in the Soundbite Era

It's become an issue for conservatives recently: How do we change our message to identify with voters?

Actually, the question shouldn't be how do we change our MESSAGE. The message isn't the problem. However, we need to change our MESSAGING.

(For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means don't change the platform, just change the description.)

Where conservatives are losing is not our message. The message of small government, personal responsibility, and freedom isn't the problem. The real problem is the way we PRESENT that message.

We can present all the charts and graphs and spew numbers until we're blue in the face, we won't win elections. Ronald Reagan didn't win two elections that way. Ronald Reagan won by presenting the conservative message in a way that average Americans could digest.

His message was simple: Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Yet today we're making it far bigger than it needs to be. The Democratic Party and liberals are good at it (even if they aren't telling the truth). Such examples are the fictional "war on women" and "the rich need to pay their fair share."

So what does our message need to be? How do we simplify conservatism to sound bites? Here are a few simple ways to talk about conservatism.

Dear Government: It's not your money!

If Americans have to live within their income, so does government.

Yes YOU can!

If you have $2 Trillion, you can't spend 3!

If you trust yourself more than the government, vote Republican.

What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was so confusing?

You can do it better without government "help!"


Freedom. Responsibility. Strength.

Compassionate results over compassionate intentions. 

Every single one of these single sentence statements are in line with the conservative thesis. All hold the same themes as the conservative pillars of personal responsibility, fiscal sanity, and small government. But each one is explained in a single sentence instead of a long chart filled with obscure data and obfuscated (but accurate) facts.

We can certainly explain our positions in greater detail when need be, which puts us in an advantage over Democrats. Our positions make logical and mathematical sense, which also puts us in advantage over Democrats. Simply put, if we can get our messaging down, we will win. Period.

Stop Bringing Up Bush to Argue Against Conservatism

Liberals and even Libertarians love this tactic: When conservatives attack Obama's irresponsible spending, talk about Bush's irresponsible spending. It genuinely misses the point: Republicanism and Conservatism aren't synonyms. It's a straw man argument.


Look, most conservatives are also registered Republicans, especially in elected office. But it's not a dual enthymeme.  While most conservatives are Republicans, most Republicans aren't conservatives. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it's kind of like: all bears are mammals, but all mammals are not bears.)
This brings us to former President George W. Bush.  I've defended President Bush and I continue to do so, primarily on the grounds of National Security. (I've said for years that Bush was a good President because a) we had no major Al Qaeda attacks on American soil post 9-11 and b) while he was President, Iran and North Korea sat in their corners and played with their blocks quietly.) Furthermore, if you told me I could trade Obama for Bush, I would literally knock people over to get a pen so I could sign that paper, toot-sweet.


That being said, on economics, Bush in many ways governed less conservatively than Bill Clinton.  (Gasp!) Let's not kid ourselves, Clinton was a weather vane. If the population wanted him to govern according to the platform of the Fancy Dress Party, he would have. (It's a real thing, look it up!)  He also quietly instilled a lot of liberal policies and nominated many liberal judges. Oh, and let's not forget that the conservative reforms of Clinton were forced upon him by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution. I've always said the 90s boom was not due to anything Clinton did but due to policies Clinton fought and lost then took credit for, like Welfare Reform and the Capital Gains tax cuts.

With the exception of Bush's tax rate reductions (they've been in place eleven years, I refuse to call them "tax cuts"), Bush put forward a lot of big government policies.  Medicare Part D is one of the biggest examples. No Child Left Behind is another. (Granted, this would've had a better chance of succeeding if schools didn't do their darndest to circumvent that law instead of following it.)

Either way, Bush did not overall govern as a conservative. One cannot consider Bush's failures as an indictment of conservatism. As far as Ronald Reagan, liberals hate to remember that Reagan got as much done as he did with a Democratic House of Representatives blocking him every step of the way and a Democrat Senate during his second term, and when he had the Senate he did not have a majority sufficient to override a philibuster.  So when you think about it, the levels of conservative reform Reagan accomplished were darn near miraculous.

At the end of the day, Bush was an example of the failure of REPUBLICANISM but not conservatism, and that failure was primarily because Republicans stopped governing as conservatives. And that's why there's a Tea Party, friends. To get conservatism back into the GOP. 

Explaining the Conservative Abortion Stance

Abortion is, of course, one of the biggest hot-buttons in the world. The Left has done a really good job of presenting their side of the issue in such a way that I regularly speak to people who tell me they absolutely never would have an abortion themselves but still consider themselves pro-choice.  The reason given by these individuals almost universally is either "I can't tell some other woman what to do with her body" or more generally "I can't tell other people what to do."

Conservatives as well as Pro-Life liberals and moderates (my childhood pastor, for example, is a staunchly Pro-Life liberal) are simply not explaining our argument simply and concisely. I'm going to attempt to do just that right now.

Simply stated, we believe that unborn child is a human being. Admittedly, this is a default perspective focused on being 100% sure that life is protected.  The fact is no human being knows when a fertilized human egg has become officially human.  One thing we can say with scientific certainty is this: It happens no sooner than the moment of conception.  That's why the vast majority of individuals have no issue with legitimate contraception.  (For the record, legitimate contraception is defined by something that stops a human egg cell from being fertilized by a human sperm cell, whether done via a barrier or medication.) 

If life begins no sooner than conception, stopping said conception from occuring is not destroying anything.  To give an analogy: Fire does not cause explosions on it's own. Neither does gunpowder.  Only when fire and gunpowder are combined do we get an explosion.  Similarly, a sperm cell on it's own does not create a human, nor does an egg cell on it's own.  Only when the sperm cell and egg cell are combined is a human being created.

Abortion, on the other hand, is quite different.  Abortion takes a human that has already been conceived and destroys it by removing it from the womb during development. What Pro-Life individuals say is this: you may stop the conception of a child, but once it is conceived it has a right to life that cannot be infringed upon by another person's right to liberty or pursue happiness.

The woman who is desiring to abort her unborn child has a right to pursue happiness, which in this case means not having a baby.  However, as I have stated so many times, I believe that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are a heirarchy.  I believe my right to Life outranks your right to Liberty (that is, to be free to do what you want), and that might right to Liberty outranks your right to Pursue Happiness. Your Right to Pursue Happiness ends at any danger to my Liberty and my Life; and your Liberty likewise ends at any danger to my Life.

So here it is, short and sweet, why conservatives and people of faith of all political ilks are opposed to abortion: We cannot abide by the either purposeful destruction of a human life.  There's actually a word for purposefully destroying a human life (except in cases of war, self defense, genuine accident, etc): Murder.  Yes, I know that's a harsh point.  But a human being does have a right to be alive.

Now, let me qualify that statement: One, the vast majority of people who have had abortions have done so in ignorance, believing they are simply removing "a mass of cells from their body." I do not think they ought to be tried for murder.  It's an act of ignorance 99% of the time and not malicious.  I want the practice stopped, not the individuals prosecuted.

Now it's time to ask you well meaning Neighborhood Liberals a question: Can you understand where we're coming from?  We see that child as human and having a right to life. We also see it as completely independent of the mother's body, albeit reliant on that mother.  Then again, my best friend and his wife have an almost 1 year old, and he's completely reliant on his parents too...so the argument that the baby can't survive without the mother in utero becomes really silly.  (As a matter of fact, I think I was about 12 years old before I could even potentially care for myself in any real way, and even then I would have sucked at it...so by the aforementioned logic killing a 9 year old isn't murder either.)

My point is that we are not going to put aside our beliefs on this...and frankly anybody who says we ought to deserves to be smacked.  We're talking about a human life, friends. We're not talking about a mass of cells and we're not talking about a "choice with one's own body." We're talking about destroying another person's body, that unborn child's.*  And that is something we cannot morally fathom.


*I know some atheist or another is going to send me that picture of a cracked egg and a caption that says "this is not a chicken." I'll spare you the trouble: Yes, actually, it is a chicken. I just have no issue with eating chickens.

Best of Biblical Conservatism: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

This week, since I'm on my annual Christmas vacation, I've been posting "The Best of Biblical Conservatism" with selections from 2011's ten most popular posts. Today's was originally posted on September 15, 2011.

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Ron Paul is Good for the Conservative Movement

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is running for President again, and you can pretty much guarantee he hasn't a snowball's chance in July of being the Republican nominee. It's an exercise we've been through once before in 2008.  We're going to see the same result in 2012.  That said, I'm glad Ron Paul is around, because he's great for conservatism.

I know, Ron Paul isn't a conservative, he's a libertarian. Libertarianism and conservatism are kind of cousin philosophies. In terms of fiscal policy, there is a lot of the same type of policies advocated (although often for different reasons).  In terms of size of government, libertarians also support small, unintrusive government, just like conservatism.  The place conservatism and libertarianism differ is either on social issues and sometimes defense.

I've said for some time now that I agree with Paul on about 80% of issues.  It's the other 20% where we start to differ...often greatly.  So how, pray tell, could Paul be so very good for conservatism?  I'll tell you the answer:  young people.

Ron Paul is getting college students and high school students and people in their 20s excited about small government!  They are getting excited about personal responsibility and government staying the heck out of their lives!  They're becoming enthralled with doing it themselves and not needing government!

It's a wonderful trend.  When I went to college, there were College Republicans, but finding true dyed in the wool conservatives was a much rarer occurrence.  Now we've got small government becoming cool, and we've got Ron Paul to thank for that.

I don't want Ron Paul as my President, but I am very happy to have him in my party.  Anyone who preaches small government and personal responsibility is good for America, and good for the conservative movement.  So thank you, Congressman Paul, for fighting for small government and personal responsibility.  We can keep disagreeing on 20% of issues, but as for the 80%, I'm glad to have you on our side.

Letter Bag: The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism

I received an annonymous comment recently (for the sake of this post, we'll call that person Anny) on an a post on a post from a few weeks ago that I wanted to address it here.  The post was Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: The Tea Party isn't Going Anywhere.  Here was the comment:

Liberalism: political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in Common Sense (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him." (and it continues...)

The Tea Party is therefore liberal.

It's an interesting point, Anny.  It's wrong, but it's an interesting point. What this individual doesn't recognize is the difference between Classical liberalism and Modern liberalism.  The definition given above is the definition of Classical liberalism.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, Classical liberalism is focused on liberty.  It supports small government, individual rights, and the Constitution.  When our nation was founded, it was a relatively liberal idea, which is to say it was to the left of the monarchy.  (Conservatism is to the left of monarch too, by the way.)

You see, in 1776 and 1787, Anny, the ideas that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution espoused were radical.  They aren't radical anymore.  Our founders created these values new, now we conservatives try to maintain them.

Modern liberalism is not about small government, it's about big government.  It's not about individual freedom, it's about group conformity and government telling you what's good for you. Modern liberalism does not recognize that government can pose a threat to liberty...it sees government as the solution to problems. 

Modern liberalism is the polar opposite as Classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism is now known as conservatism.

What Anny said is a perfect example of an etymological fallacy.  For those of you who don't have degrees in Communications, an etymological fallacy "is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning." (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means believing that what a word originally meant is what it means today.)

Liberal doesn't mean what it meant in our founders day.  The same is true of many other words.  In 1776 if a man had a "gay kid" that meant they had a "happy baby goat."  Does it mean that now, Anny?  Of course not.  Few people think of a kid as a baby goat anymore, even though that is the origin of the word, and few people still think gay means happy.

In short, the Tea Party is Classically liberal, which is synonymous with Modern conservatism.  Sorry, Anny, but in our modern context the Tea Party is conservative.

Comments are always welcomed on posts, provided they are in line with the Rules for Comments.  Please note any comment may become subject matter for a future post, as my personal interest and news cycles require. 

Treatise on Biblical Conservatism

Introduction


Biblical Conservatism. It has become the primary focus of my blogging here. The idea is that Conservatism as a political philosophy lines up closely with the teachings of the Holy Bible. Yet it occurs to me that I have not taken the time to set out a full treatise on the philosophy of Biblical Conservatism.


In the interest of full disclosure and clarity, I would like to take a moment to give a more accurate explanation of what I mean in certain terms. First of all, when I say "God," I mean the God of the Bible, also known as Jesus Christ, Yahweh, and The Lord, among other names. I believe that the God of the Bible is unique to the Bible. I do not believe, as a Christian, that I serve the same God Muslims, also known as Allah the God of Islam. There are far too many discrepancies between who the Koran says Allah is and who the Bible says Jesus Christ is...this cannot be the same God.  (For example, either God has a Son or He doesn't.  These two things cannot exist at the same time.)


I also believe that I follow the same God as the Jews only in part. I believe we both pray to the same God the Father. However, I also believe that the majority of Jewish people currently do not know/realize that the Messiah did in fact come and His name is Jesus Christ. The fact is only one person in recorded history has ever fulfilled every single prophecy of the Messiah from the Old Testament and it is Yeshua bar Yosef, or in English Jesus son of Joseph of Nazareth, is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  (Jesus Christ is either the Messiah or He isn't.  I believe He is the Messiah.  This cannot be reconciled as the same faith as those who do not believe He is the Messiah.  Further more, if I believe Jesus Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and "no one comes to the Father except through (Jesus)" (John 14:6) I cannot believe that the Jews are also correct. It is,a again, incompatible. (I recognize that I could be the one in the wrong, however I do not believe this is so.  Most Jewish people I have met would agree with this statement, with the exception that they ernestly believe they are right.)


Finally, it is important to note that I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. By that I mean that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by the hands of men as the Spirit directed them. This means that the message is perfect, but it is possible for us to misinterpret it. It also means that the best way to look at scripture is through the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, because often the English word does not perfectly translate. However, if one chooses a well derived translation like the New King James Version or the New International Version, I believe you can in fact trust the words you are reading as God's correct message.


As a historical document, the Bible is beyond compare in terms of it's accuracy across manuscripts and the support of extra-Biblical evidence. If you would like a source to support this, I recommend The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. I will do my best to derive my arguments for Biblical Conservatism directly from the Bible and the founding documents of the United States. Please be aware as we proceed that such statements as "well that's what you believe" are going to be met with tremendous scrutiny. As I have stated above, I believe the Bible is the Word of God, that God has communicated to us what HE thinks through it. It's not about "what I believe." It's about me taking God at His word.

What Is Biblical Conservatism?

You have heard it said that God is not a Democrat, and He's not a Republican either. I agree with this statement completely, because God is not associated with any one political party. I do, however, believe that God does in fact subscribe to one political PHILOSOPHY: Conservatism. If you dive into the infallible Word of God, the Holy Bible, you find that God is very much a Conservative. He believes in government handled locally of, by, and for the people with a central government to mediate between these local governments and to handle larger issues that the local governments cannot handle. When you look at the original government setup in Israel, you will see a foundation which is strikingly similar to the preferred government of Conservatism.

Unfortunately, no dictionary has ever given a satisfactory definition of Conservatism. Dictionary.com defines Conservatism as "the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change." (2) While this is perhaps the best definition I've seen of Conservatism it is not entirely accurate. Conservatives are not driven by a lack of change or by tradition, per se. Rather, as Conservatives, we believe that the framers of the United States Constitution created a governing document which, as it sits now (including the 27 Amendments which have been added since it was ratified in 1787) best provides for a common defense and a system of laws while also best protecting the fundamental, God-given rights of all human beings, among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is to be true to the United States Constitution we desire. It is not that we have a general “disposition to preserve or restore” rather we desire to preserve the specific ideals of the founding fathers along with the correction in certain cases like abolishing slavery and providing for universal adult sufferage (that's the right to vote, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) is the best government that exists in the world today, bar none.

So let's look into the government which God Himself created for His people at the founding of Israel:

The Original Government of Israel

Before Israel even became a nation, God gave forth The Law. While a good majority of people know only the Ten Commandments, under which nearly all laws can be categorized, the Old Testament Law actually has over 600 individual laws and regulations. These laws were enforced by the assembly of the people under the supervision of the priesthood. At the beginning of the nation, God, through Moses, instructed the people to appoint judges to enforce the law:

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God is giving you. - Deuteronomy 16:18-20

A few important things to note about this system of government. First and foremost, it was The Law as God had set out in great specificity for the priests in Leviticus and for the lay person in Deuteronomy.  Second, there seem to be two types of judges in the Law. The words are identical in the original Hebrew for both these national and local judges. However, in context, it does appear that the former were more of a military general to protect the nation while the latter seems to fit more into the description of what we call a judge in America.

However, there is something here that is highly important to the concept of Biblical Conservatism: The majority of judges were LOCAL! Only when a need arose did a national judge arise to protect the nation, and their job was far more that of a general then of an executive.

Government served an important purpose in Israel...to maintain order and to prevent one person from taking away the rights of another, such as that person's life (that's "murdering them" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL), their right to be at liberty (that's "making them slaves" for those of you from Palm Beach) and their property (that's stealing from them or destroying their property, for those of you from Palm Beach). All these things which government truly ought to do was handled at the local level with a few, important things being handled by the priests in Jerusalem. In the next chapter of Deuteronomy those national courts are also discussed:

“If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the LORD chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you. - Deuteronomy 17:8-11

"The place where The LORD your God will choose" was later Jerusalem. That was the centralized authority of the priesthood. Here's the thing that it is important to realize: This is the original basis of Federalism! Several small, local governments handling disputes, crime and punishment, and so forth with a small central government which can mediate between the local governments and handle larger disputes.

You may ask, "Didn't Israel have a King as it's government for the majority of it's history?" This is true, however, was this what God INTENDED or was this God granting the request of His people? The Bible demonstrates that it is the latter in the book of 1 Samuel:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel,

“Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”
1 Samuel 8:4-9

Notice that God notes that asking for a king is "rejecting God." God did not intend a King for His people...rather, He allowed them to have one since they were asking for one. Yet God did not comply with this request until he forewarned them through Samuel:

“This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” -1 Samuel 8:11-18

God proceeds to list all the evils that can be expected from a monarch. Clearly, He is trying to convince Israel to reject the idea of a monarch because of the freedom a king would take away from them. The people do not listen, and God lets him have their way, but this was not the intention of God for Israel!

Comparing God's Original Government to Our Founding Fathers

Let us compare what we've just read from the Bible to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. (3)

The founding fathers saw us as being automatically entitled to certain rights which should not be taken away from us by anyone. Not government, not other people. Further, it came from the belief that since our sovereign God had created us with these inalienable rights, that the LORD would never take away those rights He had promised to us without just cause (such as committing a crime). Under Biblical rules, crimes had multiple penalties. Murder was punishable by death (Exodus 21:12), but manslaughter (intending to harm without intending to kill) was punishable by a form of exile (Exodus 21:13), (which was as much to protect the person from unwarranted vengeance as it was a punishment). Theft of property was punished by requiring the thief to restore double the property (Exodus 22:4). In many ways, you might think of this as returning the property and paying a fine, albeit the fine was not paid to the government but rather to the person who was wronged. Righteous reasons and practices for war was lined up (Deuteronomy 20).

This system of crime and punishment lines up nicely with Conservatism. Laws that are simple and concise, not to mention impartial. The same laws applied to the priest as to the peasant. Kings were even required to fulfill this system upon their own children if necessary. Blind justice. The way to go to war properly. On a foundational level, the Biblical principles of government line up nicely with Conservatism!

God is a Flat-Taxer

Liberals in America are in love with the idea of a progressive income tax (for those of you in Palm Beach that's "paying a higer percent of taxes as you become richer).  However, God did not instruct a progressive tax from people in the Bible...rather he was in favor of a single tax for all!  The Bible gives us two examples of taxation.  The first is the Temple Tax.  The second is tithing.  We'll start with the Temple Tax:

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:  “When you take the census of the children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, that there may be no plague among them when you number them. This is what everyone among those who are numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs). The half-shekel shall be an offering to the LORD. Everyone included among those who are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering to the LORD.  The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an offering to the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves.  And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves.” - Exodus 30:11-16

This atonement money became known over time in Israel as the Temple Tax (Matthew 17:24-27).  You will notice this particular tax was taken from each individual in identical amount regardless of personal wealth!  In this particular case, each person was paying that temple tax in atonement for themselves in Israel.  Since each person's forgiveness for sin was equal in God's eyes, so also was each person's temple tax was equal.

Then there is tithing. The word tithe means 10%. God requires the tithe of all your increase (that's money gained for those of you from Palm Beach) of all his people.  He does not require 10% from the poor, 15-20% from the middle class, and 35% from the wealthy.  Here is what God says in Deuteronomy.

You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year. And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.  Deuteronomy 14:21-23

There is no progressive tithing required from God. Just a flat percentage, which still leads to a higher gross receipt because a flat percentage is still more net money when a person has more wealth coming in!

Comparing American Taxation to the Biblical Model


In America, on the local level, people are assessed property taxes.  Nearly all adults pay property taxes in one form or another. If you rent, you better believe that your rent does include a share of the property taxes your landlord pays. These local taxes pay for such things as road repairs, bridge repairs, police departments and fire departments. I don't think it can be reasonably stated that the wealthy use the roads more than the poor or middle class, nor that they use police or fire protection more than the poor or middle class. There can reasonably be adjustments on how many people are residing in a house, because a family of five would proportionally require more protection of police or ambulance than a family of two over a lifetime and a three-car family utilizes the roads more than a one-car family. Also it can be reasonably stated that someone with a larger house would require more time/man power when it catches fire than someone with a smaller house.  To this end, I do not have a particular issue with property taxes being based upon the size of the property or based upon the residents of that property.

Yet on a national level, taxation has a level of equality of use. We all require the same protection of military and of rights. Social Security, to a point, pays out proportionally to what you paid in (theoretically) but there is a ceiling to what you can receive. Same goes on the state level for unemployment insurance.  In New York State, where I live, the maximum amount of unemployment you can receive is $405 per week (which is meant to be 50% of your working income).  So if you make more than $42,000 per year (approximately), even though you pay an increasing amount of taxes toward that unemployment fund you cannot receive more money in the event of being unemployed.

For those who think that the United States Government could not subsist on a 10% flat tax...do the math.  The Gross Domestic Product (GDP for the United States in 2010 (that's the total amount of money earned in the country for those of you in Palm Beach) was $14.6 Trillion.  10% of that would be $1.46 Trillion annually, and that's the first year.  If we increased it even to a 15% federal flat tax, the receipts would become $2.19 Trillion in the first year.  For the record, in the 2010 Federal Tax Revenue Receipts were $2.1 Trillion.  Isn't it amazing how the same amount of money can be raised by everyone giving an equal percent rather than half the people paying zero taxes while the majority of the other 50% paying 15-35% in federal tax (4)? 

For those of you who want to get self-righteous about people paying "their fair share," I'm not going to let you pretend that equal percentage is synonymous with equal taxes paid.  Let's look at three individuals.  Person A makes $20,000 per year.  Person B makes $200,000 per year.  Person C makes $2 Million per year.   Under my the flat tax rates which I have proposed, let's look at what each person would pay:

10% Flat Tax


Person A: $2,000 per year in federal taxes
Person B: $20,000 per year in federal taxes
Person C: $200,000 per year in federal taxes

But wait?  I thought if they all paid 10% each person would be paying the same taxes and that's just not fair to the person who makes $20,000 per year?  This can't be right!  Person C, who makes significantly more in salary would also be paying 10 times more tax than Person B and 100 times more than Person A.  That sure seems like that wealthier person is indeed paying more in taxes!  Let's look at it again under the 15% Flat Tax:

15% Flat Tax


Person A: $3,000per year in federal taxes
Person B: $30,000 per year in federal taxes
Person C: $300,000 per year in federal taxes

But wait?  I thought if they all paid 15% each person would be paying the same taxes and that's just not fair to the person who makes $20,000 per year?  This can't be right!  Person C, who makes significantly more in salary would again be paying 10 times more tax than Person B and 100 times more than Person A.  Once again, that sure seems like that wealthier person is indeed paying significantly more in taxes!

What you will see is that under a Biblical model of taxation, not only are you still seeing people pay more tax DOLLARS as their wealth increases but also these individuals are able to retain more of their own money to do with what they please.  If we utilize my 10% recommended tax (identical to God's tithe) there is a huge difference in the amount of money these people have each year.  Please note that each person would be receiving a reduced tax based upon the amount they were previously paying. It is proportional.  It is also important to realize that under the current system, these three men were paying significantly different taxes under our current federal tax system (4).  So let us again look at what these people are paying NOW in taxes:

Person A:  Person A is currently under the 15% tax bracket, meaning he is currently paying $3000 each year in taxes.  By moving to a 10% Flat Tax, Person A's taxes drop from $3000 annually to $2000 annually.  This means he is paying 50% less in taxes.  With this reduction, he now has approximately $80 more per month to add to his budget.  This is the equivalent of a 5% pay increase.  With that money he and his wife can go out to dinner twice (which creates work for a server, a cook, etc), invest in a new appliance by saving that money for six months (which someone has to make), or set it aside for a year and go on a nice vacation (which means you're paying for a hotel, a plane trip, etc).  For this individual, this is a nice help to his budget!


Person B:  Person B is currently under the 33% tax bracket. By moving to a 10% Flat Tax, Person B's taxes drop from $66,000 per year to $20,000 per year.  This means he is paying 30% less in taxes and now has $3833 more in his budget, representing an increase of 8% to his budget each month. With this money, he can now invest in a new home (which someone must build) or invest in the stock market (giving new capital to businesses which helps them grow and hire new people). For this individual, this is a nice help to his budget!



Person C: Person C is currently under the 35% tax bracket.  By moving to a 10% Flat Tax Person C's taxes drop from $700,000 each year to $200,000 each year. This means he is paying 28% less in taxes, giving him $41,600 in new money in his budget.  For the sake of argument, let's pretend this person is the owner of the Acme Widget Factory, which I spoke about in a previous post...you'll have to read it because I'm going to assume you have in the next bit (5).


Quickly stated, they employ 500 people at an average salary of $45,000 per year.  With this new $41,600 EACH MONTH, Person C can now invest that money into their company, which means they can hire 11 new people to increase production.  Person C sees it as a good investment since that company turns a 12.5% profit annually like clockwork. 

Person C is where this policy really helps grow the economy, because now that wealthy person, who is a business owner, invests in his company and creates new taxpayers!  Herein utilizing Biblical principle in taxation becomes wonderfully successful, because people with more of their money in hand can spend it and invest into the economy through purchases, through investing in stocks, or through their own business. 

Some may say that the purpose for tithing is different than the purpose of taxation.  I disagree completely.  Let us look at one of the most famous passages of scripture on the subject of tithing:

Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says the LORD Almighty. “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the LORD Almighty.  Malachi 3:10-12

Notice the purpose of tithing, "that there may be food in My house."  Tithing existed then and exists now so that priests in the Old Testament, apostles and teachers in the New Testament, and pastors in the modern Church and their families can be paid for their work, thus freeing them to serve as spiritual guides, to run their churches, etc as a career rather than trying to do that job around holding another job.  It is so a modern pastor can not only take care of the preaching on Sunday but also serve to direct finances of the church toward benevolent offerings (that's giving money to the poor for those of you from Palm Beach), as a counselor for the members, to train other people within the church to do various tasks for the Kingdom, etc.

Taxes serve a similar purpose.  There are certain things which government naturally ought to do.  Such things as maintaining roads, plowing streets, police departments, ambulances (or organizing volunteer ambulances), fire departments (or organizing volunteer fire departments), drivers licences, etc on the local level as well as things like military defense, maintenence of relationships with other nations, etc on the national level are best handled by government.  These things do need to be funded, and taxes are the way the Constitution provides for said funding.  Even certain emergency safety net programs like unemployment insurance, social security, and Medicaid are fine by me, provided those remain ONLY A SAFETY NET and NOT a hammock.  Beyond that emergency safety net, I believe the Bible provides important instructions for caring for the poor.

God's Plan: Caring for the Poor

Many well-meaning Christian Liberals are under the impression that government welfare is fulfilling the commandments of the Bible to take care of the needy.  The Bible does instruct us to care for the needy. But it does not say that the government is responsible for it...not even in the theocracy that was Israel.  Rather, it was the job of individual Israelites and later Christians to take care of the needy through multiple different commandments:

When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 18:9-10

And again:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 23:22

For those of you from Palm Beach, gleaning is to go over the field again to pick up what was left behind.  In an agricultural society, this was a way of physically leaving food out for the poor and even travelers.  God commanded the children of Israel to leave some sheaves, some heads of grain, some grapes, some olives on the stalks, vines, and branches so that those who were hungry could simply walk up and help themselves to some food.  There was no government collection of a percentage of the grain, graps, olives, etc, it was incumbent upon the individual to be sure that a poor person or even a traveler could simply walk up and have some food.

What about money?  Certainly money was also used in Israel, right?  Absolutely.  In Deuteronomy, we are given instructions on giving to the poor:

If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. Deuteronomy 15:7-8

The instruction here is clear.  If there is someone who is in need and you are capable of providing for that need, YOU DO IT.  Jesus gave teh same requirements for providing for that need, YOU DO IT.  Jesus also made it clear that He would reward His children for caring for the poor THEMSELVES:

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;  I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me."



Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?"

And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."  Matthew 25:34-40

Nowhere in here does Jesus say "you paid taxes and your government cared for the people."  He says "YOU fed me" and "YOU clothed me."  YOU DO IT.  As a matter of fact, Jesus told us in Matthew that He sees caring for the poor as precisely the same as caring for Him! 

Now there are some differences between the modern Conservative mindset on caring for the poor and the Biblical model. However, those differences are mainly pragmatic ones (that's done for a logistical reason for those of you from Palm Beach County).  Since very relatively speaking very few people are farmers, simply leaving crops for people to walk up and help themselves to is no longer practical.  Furthermore, a hungry person would not know which fields he could glean for food without fear of prosecution.  Besides, this practice has been replaced with other more organized systems for caring for the poor.

I speak of course of private charities.  National organizations like the Red Cross, the Rescue Mission, the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and others are joined by thousands of small local organizations which provide similar services on a local level.  Whether it be through missions, food pantries, churches, private organizations which teach people fresh out of prision trades and offer them jobs to get on their feet, the Jesus Christ's worldwide Church is doing a wonderful job of providing for the needs of these individuals.

Furthermore, as I have quoted in other previous writings, these private organizations can do a better job of caring for the poor than the government!  The government spends approximately $ .35 on every dollar on help for the poor and $ .65 on every dollar on beauracracy.  Yet private charities spend on average $ .85 - $ .95 on every dollar on care for the poor. There is a reason for this phenomenon.

Christian charities are able to be far less concerned with being ripped off than government welfare.  The reason comes from the places where these two types of organizations obtain their money. Government obtains their money via taxation.  Paying taxes is compulsory.  You must pay your taxes or you can have your property taken from you, your wages garnished, or even put into prision. 

Government operates on the principle (in theory, anyway) that they are spending someone else's money.  It's true, by the way.  Government must ideally recognize that it is spending someone else's money and therefore tries (unsuccessfully) to be responsible with it.  That's where government beauracracy comes into play.  It's goal is to ensure minimal misappropriation of taxpayer dollars.  (They stink at it, but they try.)  That's why so much of every dollar is spent on red tape.

Christian charities are operating under a far different principle.  Every cent they have is given freely and without compulsion.  When I give to my church or to another charity, I give to God. I trust God to ensure that this money is used properly.  I give to charities which I choose because I trust them.  I'm not worried where it goes because I trust my Heavenly Father, and even if it does get used inappropriately, I know my Jesus will reward me in Heaven for my giving.  I can give without question and trust God.

It is obvious private charities are a far better place to take care of the poor.  God set it up that way in His (legitimately) infinite wisdom.  It was his intention for caring for the poor.  Government wasn't part of the caring for the poor in Biblical Israel, EVEN THOUGH THE CHURCH WAS THE GOVERNMENT!   It was left to private individuals.

Final Conclusions

God's plan for mankind isn't about big, intrusive government.  It isn't about taxation to the level of your ability to pay.  It's about freedom.  God created us to be free.  This includes the freedom to choose to follow Him and the freedom to choose not to follow him.  He created Israel to not have a King but to have local judges to enforce the law and national Judges (official title) who were actually more generals. He created a system of government with flat taxes in the form of a flat percentage (the tithe) and a flat amount (temple tax). Most importantly, He created a system with private citizens caring for the poor and for all of us taking care of each other.  Government was not part of the equation!

Certainly there are some things government ought naturally to do.  Conservatives argue with such things as roads, police departments, fire departments, and the military.  Most of us are even fine with a basic safety net, (i.e. 13 weeks of Unemployment Insurance, OPTIONAL Social Security (where people can opt out of it) and Emergency Medical Care for those in need).  We draw the line at Government replacing God.  I believe I have demonstrated that God agrees.  Government does not exist to meet people's needs.  Jesus Christ made that His job when He created us and then assigned His children to carry out the task. 

I say it again without question:  God may not be a Republican, He may not be a Democrat, but His Word demonstrates that He is a Conservative!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All Scriptures taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Henceforth referred to as NKJV.

(1) 1 Kings 12

(2) Definition of Conservatism - Dictionary.com

(3) The Declaration of Independence

(4) Federal Tax Brackets 2003-Present

(5) Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Not and Will Not Succeed

Debunking the Clinton Argument

"Clinton raised taxes, and we had a strong economy."  It's a point made frequently by those who are trying to argue the Conservative pillar that cutting taxes leads to stronger economies.  We all recall the 1990s and the economic boom that we all experienced.  Liberals want you to believe raising taxes not only caused the balanced budget but caused the economic boom.  Did Clinton's tax increases really cause it?  If it did, that would certainly be a tough blow to Conservative economic policy.  Unfortunately for Liberals, those pesky facts are going to get in the way.

As a reminder, the 1993 Clinton Tax Increases:

- Increased in the individual income tax rate to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge for the highest earners, thereby effectively creating a top rate of 39.6 percent.

- Repealed of the income cap on Medicare taxes. This provision made the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax apply to all wage income. Like the Social Security payroll tax base today, the Medicare tax base was capped at a certain level of wage income prior to 1993.

- 4.3 cent per gallon increase in transportation fuel taxes.

- Increased in the taxable portion of Social Security benefits.

- A permanent extension of the phase-out of personal exemptions and the phase-down of the deduction for itemized expenses.

- Raising the corporate income tax rate to 35 percent. (1)

The nature of the economy in 1993 is an important detail in the reactions to the tax increases.  One, the economy was in full recovery from the rather mild recession of 1990-91.  So it was an economy on the incline BEFORE the tax increases.  Furthermore, as the Heritage Foundation put it:

Tax policy aside, much in the context of the 1990s was conducive to prosperity. The end of the Cold War brought a new sense of hope and greater certainty to the global economy. The price of energy was astoundingly low, with oil prices dropping to about $11 per barrel and averaging under $20 per barrel compared to prices above $90 per barrel today. The Federal Reserve had finally succeeded in establishing a significant degree of price stability, with inflation averaging less than 2 percent during the Clinton Administration. And, of course, a tremendous set of new productivity-enhancing technologies involving information technologies and the World Wide Web burst on the scene. (1)

The Heritage Foundation proceeded to say that, in absence of a major hit to the economy (like a large tax increase, which the Clinton increase wasn't...it was a modest one), it would be hard NOT to have nice growth in the economy.  That's what we had, modest, but not spectacular growth in the economy from 1993-1996.  That included:

- The economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.

- Employment rose by 11.6 million jobs.

- Average real hourly wages rose a total of five cents per hour.

- Total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose 78 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. (1)

This sort of growth is expected anyway from a country coming out of a recession.  It's a solid 240,000 jobs per month average.  Again, this can be expected from an economy recovering from a recession, especially a modest one like the 1990-91 recession.  In essence, prior to 1997, the Clinton Tax increases were not sufficient to offset the positive trends in the economy, thus there was a modest growth.

But Chris, wasn't the 90s economy a booming one?  In the LATE 90s it most certainly was a boom.  What happened then to cause those booms?  I'm so glad you asked.  In 1997, the Republicans passed a tax relief and deficit reduction package.  That package:

- Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent

- Created a new $500 child tax credit

- Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education

- Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million

- Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs

- Established education IRAs

- Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax live
- Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax.

Yep, taxes were CUT.  Then, and only then, did we see the economy boom.  The Capital Gains cut lead to a huge boost in investment capital in businesses (that's business owners investing in their own businesses, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL).  In 1995, there was approximately $8 Billion invested in venture capital.  In 1998, the first full year of the capital gains cut, there was a $28 Billion invested in venture capital. (1) Also, after that point, we saw real GDP growth increased from 3.2% to 4.2% and wages grew by more than 10 times the wage growth in the previous four years.  Yes, some of that boom was also due to the boom in internet industry.  No argument there.  That said, can anyone really claim that the Clinton Tax Hikes helped create the so-called dot com businesses?  Not legitimately, anyway.

Drawing upon historical evidence, I would argue that the Clinton tax increases may have hindered the growth a little, based on the old economic axiom "if you want less of something, tax it."  I would agree the increases weren't sufficient enough to do serious damage, since those rates, at least on the Federal level, were still under the damage line of the Laffer Curve.  However, the frequent claim of the Left that the Clinton Tax Increases lead to the booming economy is patently false.  It was Clinton and the Republican Congress' tax cuts in 1997 that lead to the boom.  Even in the Clinton economy, the score was Conservatism 1, Liberalism 0.

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

(1) Overall Source:  Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

Reflections from the 4th of July

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. – Declaration of Independence

It was two hundred and thirty-five years ago yesterday that those words were officially ratified, unanimously, by the Continental Congress and our nation was born. It took the Constitution of the United States nearly ninety years after the nation’s birth to live up to that creed. It took over one hundred and eighty years for the Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board of Education to ensure true equality in law. It took over two hundred years for the hearts and minds of Americans to truly believe these words.

Yet, in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of Americans, we have arrived at the place where we do indeed see all as created equal and judge people by their actions, not their skin tone. There are some who will claim racism as an excuse for why Conservatives dislike President Obama (ignoring the fact that one of the Tea Party’s favorite candidates is Herman Cain) or sexism as an excuse when Conservatives dislike various female politicians on the left like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton (ignoring the fact that two of the Tea Party’s favorite candidates/potential candidates are Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin), the truth is America only sees people through their race or gender thanks to the Left reminding us of those differences.
Truth be told, the only real failures in America are due to failing our creed and our founding. We failed in the first ninety years by continuing slavery, but we righted that wrong through the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Civil War. We failed our creed by the continuance of segregation into the 1950s and 60s, but we righted that failure with Brown v. Board and the Civil Rights Act.

Today we’re in the middle of a correction, one that I believe we are winning as well, by correcting our failures to let freedom reign by allowing confiscatory taxes, regulations that stifle growth, and laws that tell people what foods they can eat or continuing to lecture people about legal habits that they, as adults, have chosen to continue with full knowledge of the dangers.

On this, the two hundred thirty-fifth anniversary of the United States, I want to encourage you who believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with these words that a hero of mine wrote in 1993 after the election of Bill Clinton to the Presidency. I believe it holds true today as well:

We can win, my friends. But we can also choose not to win. It is up to us. Liberalism is failing, as I chronicle each day, and can’t beat us. Only we can make ourselves lose ground. We Conservatives must remain united, confident, on the offensive, and avoid the temptation to circle the wagons.

Liberalism is one of the most gutless choices one can make. It is easy to be a liberal. You just say yes to everything. Some guy wants to throw a rock through a window and blow up the building, you just say he has a right to do it because of some oppression he feels. You run around saying you care all day and do a few symbolic things, like conduct a bake sale and raise $150 to reduce the $4 Trillion national debt (2). Or you take your daughter to work with you one day of her life and claim she now is prepared to do battle with unfairly advantaged little boys.

Being conservative takes guts, though, because the dominant media will make fun of you, liberals will try to shut you up, leftist activists will try to intimidate you. As a conservative, you remind people that they are responsible for their fate, which is construed to be heartless, cruel and mean-spirited. As a conservative, you demand accountability while many want to go through life blameless and they’ll react angrily when you confront them with the truth. In short, you are a target when you are a conservative. We are winning, my good friends, but this skirmish will never be over, which is why you must remain confident, undaunted, and dedicated to your principles and ethics. We all must. – Rush Limbaugh, “The Way Things Ought to Be” (3)

Rush wrote that eighteen years ago. Since then, we’ve seen it play out. We chose to lose in 2006 and 2008 because the Republican Party chose to, as Rush said, “Circle the wagons.” As I’ve put it before, we chose to be the New Coke of political parties to the Democrat Pepsi (might as well just drink a Pepsi). That’s why we lost. We failed to be Conservative. In 2010, the GOP won a huge victory because we went back to being Conservative. We lived up to our country’s founding for the first time in years.

I want to encourage you on this two hundred thirty-fifth anniversary of our nation (the day after, actually) that we are winning and that we can continue to win, provided we continue to stand up for the things that Conservatism stands for: freedom, personal responsibility, and the Constitution of the United States. If we do, Barrack Obama will be a one-term President. If we do, I believe we will grow our majority in the House of Representatives and win the Senate. Only if we fail to be Conservative will we lose.

Republicans must remember who they are: We are the party who freed the slaves. We are the party who passed the Civil Rights Act. (Democrats try their best to claim that the “the Republicans of today are the Democrats of history and the Democrats of today are the Republicans of history.” It is, of course, an attempt to ignore their own poor history and lay claim to the GOP’s far more desirable history.)

We in the Tea Party must require that Conservatism out of the Republican Party in 2012. We must flock to the primaries and vote for Conservatives. We must not believe that a “moderate” is our best chance to win. It’s not. We’ve lost in national elections when we run moderates (see Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain). We’ve won with Conservatism in national elections (see: Reagan, Bush 41 in ’88, Bush 43 in ’00 and ’04). We lost with moderates in ’76, ’92, ’06 and ’08. We’ve won with Conservatism in ‘80, ‘84, ‘88, ‘94, ‘98, ‘00, ‘02, ’04 and ’10.

If we force the GOP to live up to Conservatism, to the Constitution, we will win. History has proven that. Americans are by far more Conservative, with Liberalism in the small minority. Those numbers have changed in our favor over the last several years. My friends, we are winning. We must only choose to win.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The Declaration of Independence

(2) Nearly twenty years later it’s our debt is $14 Trillion thanks to two Liberal Democrat Presidents and their spending and a Republican President who spent like a Liberal.

(3) “The Way Things Ought to Be” by Rush Limbaugh, Copyright 1992, 1993 by Rush Limbaugh. Published by Pocket Books, a division of Simon and Schuster Inc., 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020

I am a Conservative, not a Republican

It probably wouldn't surprise you at all to know that I spend a lot of time debating with people online about politics.  One thing that inevitably comes up when I espouse Conservatism is the recent failures of Republicans.  Unfortunately for the country, those failures were perpetrated by Republicans who weren't governing as Conservatives, which is something I often point out. 

Regardless of how he ran in 2000, in many instances, George W. Bush did not govern as a Conservative.  He created a new prescription drug entitlement, increased the government's role in education, and added a new cabinet position.  The rest of his party signed off on it.  In short, in the 2000s, the Republican spent like Democrats, and did not govern as Conservatives.  They governed as "moderates" and in many cases as Liberals. 

For the record, that's why I think the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008.  The way the Republicans have acted in the last decade remind me a lot of the phenomenon of New Coke.  For those who do not familiar, New Coke was a reformulation of the classic Coca-Cola formula in 1985 that was sweeter and, quite frankly, tasted more like Pepsi.  Consumers widely rejected it, deciding "rather than drink a Pepsi knockoff, I might as well drink a Pepsi."  After a few years, Coke bagged the new formula and brought back the old, repackaging it as Coca-Cola Classic.  Coke has lead the cola wars since the return of the classic formula. 

Republicans have done similarly in being similar to Democrats rather than being the Conservatives that won them elections to begin with.  Voters decided, "the heck with it, might as well get a full blown Democrat."  But in 2010, when the Republicans ran as Conservatives, abracadabra, we won!  We went to being Coca-Cola Classic, if you will, and that won.

So why am I a Conservative?  I'm a Conservative because I believe in freedom.  I believe that government exists to stop other people from taking away my life, liberty, and property...that's about it.  I can accept some other things being done my local and state governments, like roads and even schools. 

I believe that the government that governs least governs best.  I believe there are only a few things government can do better than the private sector (even then it's the least worst option) like roads, fire departments, ambulances, police departments, and the military.  In other situations, I believe private companies can do a better job, whether that be as a non-profit charity taking care of the needy or private companies competing to offer the best possible health care options at better prices. 

I am a Conservative because I believe that, no matter how much money you have, it's your property.  While the Constitution grants government the right to levy taxes, if you read the writings of the founders it becomes clear that they did not intend the taxation of incomes at rates of 40%, 50%, or even 70% in mind!  Remember, the founders served in Congress, the Presidential cabinet, as our first five Presidents, and as governors of the individual states after the Constitution was ratified.  Do you know what sort of taxes they levied?  Tariffs on imports and consumption taxes on certain goods like tobacco and alcohol.

I'm a Conservative because I believe that the Republican party gained what it set out to achieve when the GOP (not Democrats) passed the Civil Rights Amendment and reformed the tax code in the 80s, so now we stand on what we've achieved and said "we've achieved the best possible legislative climate that government can create, let's leave things here."

Why I say I'm a Conservative and not a Republican is because the GOP has spent the last twenty years or so failing Conservatism.  The failures of the Republican party recently are not indicative of Conservatism.  They are indicative of Liberalism being legislated from the right. It's not about being a Republican (it never was) it's about being a Conservative, because Conservatism works.

How Telling: Liberals Claim Voter ID Laws Will "Disenfranchise" Their Voters

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a bill into law that would require voters to present photo identification before voting, rather than simply signing their name. The Drive-By Media and Democratic Party have responded with resounding claims that this bill will “disenfranchise Democrat voters.” Perhaps, if you haven’t spent your life since the age of eight being skeptical and having your ears tuned to Freudian slips like this from the Lamestreamers, you missed it. Let me repeat myself: Democrats are claiming that being required to prove that you are who you say you are would disenfranchise Democrat voters. That’s VERY interesting.


Quick poll: How many of you carry some form of legal identification with you wherever you go? Raise your hand please.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that every hand of every adult who reads this blog is in the air. In addition, I took a poll online, and thanks to my readers here, my Twitter followers, and my Facebook friends, and would you like to know how many of those individuals not only have a photo ID but also carry it wherever they go? About 90% of them, and something tells me the other 10% have ID that they choose not to carry everywhere they go, or perhaps it’s the few readers I have who show up in my tracker as reading this from places like Iraq and Afghanistan and are serving our country (to those of you, thank you from the bottom of my heart.)

Now this poll was by no means scientific, it was no more than a straw poll. Yet I’m certain that if I DID do scientific poll, I would find that the number of eligible individuals in America who are legally able to vote (that’d be a person at least 18 years old, an American citizen, a person who has not been convicted of a felony, and who has registered to vote, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) who do not have any sort of legal photo ID would be miniscule.

Chances are, like most American adults, you have a driver’s license. I’m guessing that the ones of you don’t say, live in Manhattan and take the subway everywhere or for some other reason don’t have a drivers license probably have a non-driver identification card or a passport. The only people who would legitimately not have any need to get any form of legal photo identification are those who neither drive, nor ever leave the country, nor ever want to purchase any age required product, whether that be tobacco, alcohol, or for that matter cough syrup and cold relief pills, or if you want to open a bank account, or have a cell phone plan or rent an apartment, because for each of those things you need photo identification. Whether that is a driver’s license, a non-driver identification card or an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Card, it is almost impossible to survive in the adult world without some sort of photo identification. That is the reality of the world.

Furthermore, asking a person to demonstrate they are who they claim to be is very important when it comes to voting. Voter fraud is a serious problem. People are able to claim that they are somebody else to vote more than once, to vote when they are not registered, to vote in the name of the deceased, etc. So what, precisely, does the Democratic Party mean when they say that requiring photo ID would disenfranchise their voters?

As I demonstrated moments ago, it’s nearly impossible to function in the adult world without photo identification, whether you are black or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, you need to have some form of photo identification to function in society. So why would it be such a travesty to require those who are registered to vote to show that they are who they claim to be? Considering the majority of us carry our ID with us wherever we go anyway, why who precisely would it disenfranchise?

The answer, of course, is those who aren’t franchised to begin with. People who are not legitimately registered to vote, for whatever reason, would be disallowed to vote. Whether that be those voting for dead people, whether that be convicted felons, whether it be people voting twice under two different names, those individuals would be barred from voting (or voting again).

Buried deep inside this Democrat talking point is a serious issue that is brought up every single election and never dealt with. Democrats, of course, try to give us a slight of hand by claiming that Republicans are going to try to disenfranchise Democrat voters, yet election after election there are no stories of Republicans stopping Democrats from voting. In 2008, we heard stories of the New Black Panthers intimidating Republican voters in Philadelphia. We saw Harry Reid miraculously win in 2010 by about five percent when every poll leading up to the election showed him LOSING by that amount.

No, I’m not insinuating anything. I’m flat out saying that this talking point is showing a real Democrat fear: voter identification laws would stop Democrats from using fraud to win elections. And yes, to whatever degree members of ANY political party would try similar tactics; it would also stop them from such fraud as well. It’s a reasonable piece of legislation that Democrats are throwing a conniption fit over. They are showing their hand a bit. They’re telling us that voter identification would hurt their ability to steal close elections. They will claim, I guarantee it, that requiring individuals to show identification cards to vote is either comparable to Apartheid in South Africa, or maybe Nazi Germany, or how about claim it’s reminiscent of Jim Crow in the South (as usual ignoring the fact, as history demonstrates, that it was Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow) in an effort to deflect this reality. Those tactics, however, are just smoke and mirrors. The reality is simple: the only people who are “disenfranchised” by a voter identification law are those who legally shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

On Self Defense: Conservatism Works in Reality, Liberalism Does Not

Perhaps you've had this discussion with a Liberal:  What would you do if you are in a store and a person enters, points a gun, and announces his intent to shoot people.  He's not there to rob the place.  His plan is to take out some kind of revenge on a society that, in his mind, has done him wrong.  As a Conservative, perhaps you exercise your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and have a legally purchased and licensed hand gun concealed on your person. You suggest to your Liberal friend that this gun gives you the ability to stop this crazy person before he harms another person, probably by shooting them first. After all, it's him or us, right? 

If your Liberal friends are anything like mine, they will tell you how horrible that would be of you.  You ask your Liberal friend what they would do.  Predictably, your Liberal friend says that they would try to talk the gunman out of his plan, perhaps by showing them compassion of some sort.  What is amazing to me is the fact that Liberals, at least the Neighborhood Liberals, truly believe this would work!  It's astounding, honestly, to think that a person who is legitimately out of their mind and intent on murder, would be talked out of it by someone nicely asking them to stop.

This attitude is the inevitable result of decades of Liberals not allowing the smallest of school yard scraps and telling children "fighting is never the answer."  Even at the school yard level, I've seen how this mindset fails.  In my own school experiences, I was told that, if a person attacks you, regardless of whether or not you provoked them, I should not fight back.  Instead, I was told that I should simply let them hit me until someone came and broke it up.  I was once told that I should not have fought back when, in junior high, someone hit me in the face with the handle of a lacross stick.
Thankfully, my parents did not subscribe to the school's mentality.  My father taught me to do my best to walk away and avoid violence.  Dad taught me not to throw the first punch and to do my best to resolve those conflicts without fighting.  However, my Dad also taught me that if a person took a swing at me, at that point I had the right to defend myself.  That was how I was raised: avoid fighting as much as you can, but when someone attacks you, don't let them. For the record, in the aforementioned lacross stick incident, I tried to walk away up until the point this person physically attacked me.  I fought back to stop this person from harming me further. (Translation: I decked the guy in the face and laid him out.)  I did not want to fight him, and I did my best to avoid it.  But once he struck me, I defended myself.

The Bible backs up this mentality:

A righteous man who falters before the wicked  is like a murky spring and a polluted well. 
Proverbs 25:26

If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. Exodus 22:2

So the Word tells us not to falter before the wicked and even says that if a thief is killed while breaking into a house then the defender is not guilty.  (Please note this self defense freedom only lasts during the burglary.  If the homeowner harms the burglar the next day, aside from the process of bringing that person to legal justice, it becomes murder.)  How much moreso if one is defending his own life?  God does not tell us to try to "talk it out" with those who are trying to do us harm. He tells us we are within our rights to defend ourselves and our property if we or our property are being attacked.

Furthermore, the idea that you can reason with a school yard bully, much less a madman with a gun who is willing to kill innocent people, much less an evil tin-pot dictator who keeps his own people in secret prisons and murders them if they are even perceived as a threat to their power, is absolutely foolish.  This sort of people will laugh and continue their violence in the face of "rational dialouge." What does work is stopping them physically so that they cannot harm you or another.

If it takes using a legally purchased gun to stop a crazy person from shooting ten other people, my response is "BAM," and if necessary "BAM BAM BAM BAM."  That will stop innocent people from being hurt.  "Are you sure you really want to hurt us?  Don't you want to have a discussion about what's really bothering you" at best causes the villain in our story to tell our kindhearted Liberal friend to shut up, and at worst it gets our kindhearted Liberal friend killed.

Once again, Conservatism and our self-defense mentality, whether it be with our hands or with a legally purchased gun, works.  The Liberal mentality does nothing at best, gets people hurt at works.

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

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

Liberal Attempts to Co-Opt Jesus Christ

With Easter two days ago, sadly we were also treated to Liberals trying to pretend Jesus Christ is a Liberal.  As Rush Limbaugh stated on Monday, this is what Liberals see as the only use for Jesus. To Elected Liberals, who see all religions as crutches to help weak people get through life, Jesus can only be used to promote their policies.

Before I continue, I want to again state unequivocally my faith. I am a born-again Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He came to Earth, walked amongst us for 33 years, was crucified for the sins of mankind and rose again on the third day, which we call Easter. I believe Jesus Christ is alive and well and that He reigns with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. I believe He is returning as He promised, and that right quickly.  I also believe Jesus told us EXACTLY who He is and what is truth in His Word, the Holy Bible.  I believe the Bible is infallible and beyond reproach as the documentation of God's truth.

Finally, please be aware that the Bible says:

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." - Hebrews 13:8 (1)

Thus, Old Testament verses are as useful as New Testament verses on the subject of what Jesus believes.  There is no distinction between the statements of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit through prophets and directly to people in the Old Testament and the statements of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

Please note I won't go into the scriptures as deeply on this because I have a longer paper I want to publish here once it's ready fully discussing the principles of Biblical Conservatism.


Anyone who has read more than two posts on this site know that Jesus is not a Liberal.  Any arguments against this can be torn down easily.  Liberals will tell you Jesus "accepted everyone" as an argument that Jesus would accept all lifestyles, even those that include sins like homosexuality and promiscuity. This is inherently false.  It takes Jesus out of context.  Here's the truth: Jesus Christ accepts all PEOPLE but does not accept all BEHAVIORS!  Consider the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John:


The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His  finger, as though He did not hear.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”  And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.  Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”

She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11 (2)

If Jesus was a Liberal as Liberals claim, wouldn't He have said "Go, everything you're doing is fine, you were born that way."  He didn't!  He said "Go and sin no more."  Herein lays the real difference between Jesus Christ and Liberals.  Jesus accepts all people, but not all their actions.  Christ knows who he created people to be, and that their bodies were not created for adultery.  He accepts the woman, but that acceptance requires her to follow Him.  Following Jesus means doing all in your power to put on Christ and to reject sin.  Of course, this doesn't mean Christians must never sin and that we're expected to suddenly become perfect. We aren't.  But we are expected to do our best to turn from our sin.  In other words, if someone is now knowingly living a lifestyle of sin (like promiscuity or homosexuality) they must stop.

Or perhaps you might say that Jesus was opposed to wealth, as Liberals are opposed to wealth. Yet the Bible does not speak against wealth. Instead, it speaks of places where God BLESSED the righteous with wealth!

The LORD has blessed my master greatly, and he has become great; and He has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys. - Genesis 24:35 (3)


Or perhaps this passage:


Blessed is the man who fears the LORD,
         Who delights greatly in His commandments.     
 His descendants will be mighty on earth;
         The generation of the upright will be blessed.
 Wealth and riches will be in his house,
         And his righteousness endures forever. - Psalm 112:1-3 (4) 

Or here:


“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day. - Deuteronomy 8:18 (5) 

The Bible speaks of God BLESSING people with wealth, how can you claim Jesus believed wealth is evil?  The truth is Jesus never condemned money.  The Bible does say:

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. - 1 Timothy 6:10 (6)


The Bible does say the LOVE OF MONEY is evil, but money itself is not. God speaks throughout the Bible of blessing people with money, provided it does not become a false idol to people.  So it is unreasonable to believe Jesus is opposed to people becoming wealthy.


Or  how about taxes?  Liberals believe it is just to tax those who are wealthy at a higher rate than others.  The Bible had two forms about tax in the Bible.  The first, the temple tax (Exodus 30:11-16) was the same amount for all people, one half shekel. The second is the tithe.  The tithe was the same percentage from all people, 10% of that person's income (Deuteronomy 14:21-23).  That's the exact same percentage of tax on all people.  That's a flat tax, people.


So many Liberals like to say that under a flat tax, richer people wouldn't be paying "their fair share." I disagree.  Let's look at three individuals:

Person A: $20,000 annual salary 
Person B: $200,000 annual salary
Person C: $2 Million annual salary..   

Under a Biblical Flat Tax (10%) let's look at what each person would pay:

10% Flat Tax


Person A: $2,000 per year in federal taxes
Person B: $20,000 per year in federal taxes
Person C: $200,000 per year in federal taxes

As you'll see, as God blesses a person with more income, their tithe and taxes would increase exponentially. Furthermore, with more money in the economy, one can expect lower unemployment which means more taxpayers and ultimately increased tax revenue.  It's a historical fact! (7)

How about caring for the poor?  Jesus must have supported government spending on the poor, right?  Actually no. In both the Old and New Testaments, God tells individuals to care for the poor.

If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. - Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (8)


That's right, YOU give to the poor. Directly. Don't give to the government and have the government redistribute the money.  You do it. That's not Liberalism. That is Conservatism!

Another Easter is passed so Liberals will cease using Jesus to support their policies for another year.  But every year, without fail, Liberals, especially in the Drive-By Media, will try to co-opt Jesus based upon their false premises of compassion. I say it again, unequivocally: Jesus Christ is not a Liberal. Jesus said YOU take care of the poor. Jesus instituted flat taxes in Israel. Jesus doesn't tell people to keep up their sins without accountability.  Jesus is a Conservative.


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

(1) Hebrews 13:8

(2) John 8:3-11

(3) Genesis 24:35

(4) Psalm 112:1-3


(5) Deuteronomy 8:18


(6) 1 Timothy 6:10

(7) "Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates" from Heritage Foundation

(8) Deuteronomy 15:7-8