The Message?

Imagine that you are the parent of nine children.  Three children are three years of age,  three are nine and three are  sixteen, seventeen and eighteen, respectively.  Now imagine that your children get to vote for who their parents are.  The opponent who is running against you has several credit cards and has promised to use those cards to supply the three and nine year olds with almost anything they want. The teenagers will have to work to help pay off the debt.  Given these circumstances, would you, as a loving and caring person, be voted in as their parent?  It is understood that sometime in the future the debt of those credit cards will have to be paid by the kids.  The teenagers would realize that this is not a good situation and would more than likely vote for the more responsible parents.  The three year olds would believe your opponents when they told them that they are "entitled" to all the candy they can eat and  that it is wrong that you insist on a bedtime.  The election outcome may pivet on the nine year olds.  What would your message be?

The situation described above is similar to what conservatives who run  for office face.  One third of the electorate will vote Republican, one third will vote Democrat and the other third will decide the outcome of the election.  We have recently had Republicans who have shifted left to gain office.  They have bought into the notion that they must promise to give things in order to get elected.  Conservatives will never win in a contest of desirable outcome.  We see that these outcomes are not possible.  We also see that the debt incured by promising welfare entitlements is bankrupting the country. Sharing the wealth that other people have earned is a disincentive to those earning it, thus crippling the economy.  Not to mention it is just wrong to give to other people someone else's gain.

Given this situation, can a conservative who remains true to his principles get elected?  Can someone run on the idea that we need to scale back on the "give away" programs run by the Federal government?  An example of what is run by the feds that could be more effectively handled by the states is the Department of Education.  Ronald Reagan tried to eliminate this department that he called "Carter's boondoggle".  He was met with fierce opposition by the very powerful teacher's unions.  We, as a society, have become so used to how much the Federal government is in are lives that there is real fear in losing our security net  (regardless of the tremendous waste that we all know occurs in Washington).

There were two people who were able to get elected to the office of president that did not promise a laundry list of goodies.  One said, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what can you do for your country."  This was followed up by, "My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."  The other said, "Goverment is not the solution to our problem, goverment  is the problem".  In spite of  the messages (or maybe because of them),  they were both very popular.  It gives me hope for this country that Ronald Reagan and John F.Kennedy could talk of a vision for our country that did not consist of our goverment taking care of us and still get elected.

When I talked to my wife about my "nine children" analogy,  she was quite certain that she would be elected as their mother.  When pressed, she explained that she could convey, even to the three year olds,  the ramifications of their decisions.  Upon further reflection, I believe that she is right.

 One obvious reason is the bond between parents and their children.  Their is a bond that we share as Americans, as well.  When I compare the words of Obama to those of Reagan, I notice that where Obama  uses the word, "I", Reagan used words such as, "we" and  "fellow Americans".  Where Obama talks of how America should be,  Reagan spoke of America's greatness.  There has never been a greater nation than the United States of America and that fact has to be part of our message.

We expect our children to act in a proper manner.  I believe that we should expect upright behavior from our leaders as well as ourselves and America will respond to that message.  We have lowered expectations for our leaders and they in return view us as the three year olds in my analogy.  We complain about how crooked politians are and yet we continue to elect them.  Is it for the goodies they promise us?  They certainly think so.  Our message needs to be that there are expectations for both the electorate and the elected .

Sincerity is the key ingredient in the making of our message.  Good parents know that they need to be honest and direct with their children as well as consistent.  One reason President Reagan was so popular is that the people could see that he actually tried to do what he said he would do.  One example of this was his budget proposals.  Every budget he submitted to congress was balanced, as promised.  Speaker of the House at the time, Tip O'Neill, would declare Reagan's budget proposals "dead on arrival" refusing to take responbility for cutting spending.    

Where my analogy does not fit is in the fact that we want as little government involvement in our lives as  possible.  Yet it is the goal of good parents to raise their children in such a manner that they will become independent adults.  If liberals raise their children in the way they run the government, I can't imagine their kids ever leaving home.    

           

Hey! I'm Up Here.....Someone Please Talk Me Down

I grew up attending an unafilliated Protestant church.  Before the Left Behind books came out, I was steeped in apocalyptic speculation.  The Book of Revelations still remains one of my favorites of the Bible (this should give you tremendous insight into my charactor).  I have noticed that the LDS church doesn't seem to focus a lot of attention on future biblical prophesy.  They rightly focus on preparation for whatever happens.  I am not complaining about my new found church.  I am trying to prepare you for what I am about to write.  You see, I have this annoying habit of putting together future scenarios in my head, stringing together facts and events and trying to fit them into biblical prophesy.  This, by the way, is one of the things I do that drives my wife nuts.  I am not saying that I am a prophet or have any greater insight than anyone reading this and, odds are, I am totally wrong, but it's nice having a blog where I can put down on paper (so to speak) what I speculate. 
One Final Warning:  you are about to enter into my version of the twilight zone,  read it at your own risk.

Since reading about the Antichrist in the Bible, I have an innate distrust of anybody in a leadership role who has charisma.  Of course, this makes it dificult for me to trust anyone in leadership since charisma is one of the prerequisites to being an effective leader.  Speculations on who the Antichrist is has been the game of Christians since Christ last left the earth.  I remember when a friend's mother thought it was Ronald Reagan when he was president.  Her reasoning was that his three names all contained six letters (his middle name was Wilson).  I considered it for about three minutes and than dismissed it because it was, after all, Ronald Reagan - the last good president we have had (I place him as one of the three greatest).  Letters in a name is one interpretation of the six-six six riddle; but another interpretation that I have heard is that it cannot equal seven ( the number of perfection)  no matter how many times six is repeated.  How this would apply is that the Antichrist would be a person portraying himself  and his agenda as perfect or close to perfect but never able to be perfect.  At this point, I think you, my very savvy readers, are catching on to what I'm saying.  Perhaps you have had simular thoughts. 

Okay enough beating around the bush.  I think President Obama might (emphasis on might) be the Antichrist.  Now that I have finally put that out to the public at large, I truly feel as if I'm up a tree in the center of crazy town.

Here's my reasoning:

A)  The charisma thing.  It amazes me how people are taken by his charm and how eagerly they look past all his flaws.  He has very little political experience.  The people he surrounds himself with are leftest to the extreme and yet a country that is supposedly centrist elected him to the highest office.

B)  Although he has such little experience, he comes off as arrogant.  In and of itself, arrogance would not be indicative of the Antichrist but it lends credence to my idea of the assumption of perfection.

C)  There has been some dispute about his having been born in this country.  Okay, I know there are many people born outside of America and they can't all be evil.  I wonder about the possibility ( and this is a stretch but, hey, it's my brain - you have no idea how scary it is to live in my brain) that Obama could have been born near the original location of Babylon.

D)  The UPC bar codes that are on many of the products we buy start with,  have in the middle of them, and end with the numbers six, six, six.  The mark of the beast is ready and could easily be used to ID the population at any time.  The reasoning for using this form of ID is in place.  It involves the control of money.  If we were to get rid of paper money and simply use debit cards, money would be harder for terrorists or other unsavory charactors to obtain.  Of course, cards can be stolen.  But if chips were to be planted in either the forearm or forehead, as referenced in The Book of Revelations, it would be nearly impossible to steal.

E)  Okay, this is a real stretch but bear with me.  The Mayan calender is scheduled to make its big change in 2012.  It's possible that the Mayan's are decendants of the Lamanite's.  Is it possible that the Mayan calender could be inspired by our God?  Truthfully, I don't know, so I leave it for your scrutiny.

Now that we have plumbed the depths of my addled psyche (now you can relate to my wife) let's step back and gain some perspective.  Every generation since Christianity was founded has thought that they were in the last days. It's quite possible that the seventh seal has been opened recently (earthquake's could be our clue), but even so, it could be up to a thousand years before Christ returns.

I have questions about Mormon beliefs regarding the last days.  Most Protestants believe in a rapture (the catching up of Christians) before the Tribulation.  It is speculated that the rapture creates the disruption that brings about the changes necessary for what is foretold in The Book of Revelations.  I know that we are to meet in Jackson County, MO where we will be protected from the tribulation period.  Is it possible that the calling up of the Saints and the rapture could both occur?          
       

Let Freedom Ring...........................Loudly

Since I started this blog nearly a year ago, I have noticed a trend developing in the subject matter of my posts (ramblings, musings, out and out nonsense..... you decide).  I don't think I intended to focus so much attention on just the federal government.  Clearly there is plenty to write or complain about within the State of Colorado and there are human interest strories that I could give my two cents worth on.  I think there are a few reasons for my compulsion to cover national government events.  One:  I'm comfortable with the subject matter.  This is due in part to the fact that most of the media that catches my interest is of  the goings on in our nation's capital.  Two:  People are closer to the state and local governments, so I feel that they are more informed and don't need to hear me blather on about things that they know all to well.  I do not mean to say that you three (or am I up to four?) people who put up with my ramblings are uninformed.  Quite the opposite.  I  am grateful for those of you who regularly comment.  You are well informed and I love sharing with you my opinions.  And my wife is thrilled that I have an outlet so she doesn't have to constantly be harangued.  Three:  And most importantly,  I feel that the greatest threat to our  freedom comes from our own federal government. 

We, the American people, in our desire for security, are trading in our freedom - this monstrous health care bill is the biggest assault on civil liberties we have seen in our lifetimes.   The dumbing down of the populace has had a deleterious effect.  Civics classes are almost non-existent in the public schools and let's not even go into the drivel that is taught as history. 

Today we have the tools to turn this trend towards socialism around and, let me be clear that socialism is an anathema to freedom.  With the advent of the internet, we have unbelieveable access to information and it is information that is our greatest weapon against the enemies of our great nation. 

A well informed electorate is the cure for what ails us,  That and God is the only thing that will turn our nation back to it's former greatness. 

A History Lesson - The Legacy of Argentina

The following is from an Email I recieved.  As far as I know, the history is correct.  Of course, the conclussions are debatable but the parrelels are frightening.  The author is unknown. 

A History Lesson....Cry for Me, Argentina


In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries

in the World. While Great Britain 's maritime power and its far-flung

empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the World's

industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina

for the position of the world's second-most powerful economy.

It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich

farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system.

Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries:

railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.

In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipólito Irigoyen had formed

a party called The Radicals under the banner of "fundamental change"

with an appeal to the middle class.

Among Irigoyen's changes: mandatory pension insurance,

mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income

housing construction to stimulate the economy. Simply put,

the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the

country's operations and began assessing new payroll taxes

to fund its efforts.

With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs,

the government's payouts soon became overly generous.

Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers' contributions.

Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States'

Social Security and Medicare programs.

The death knell for the Argentine economy, however,

came with the election of Juan Perón. Perón had a fascist

and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife

aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation's rich.

This targeted group "swiftly expanded to cover most of the

propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be

defeated and humiliated."

Under Perón, the size of government bureaucracies exploded

through massive programs of social spending and by

encouraging the growth of labor unions.

High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll

even after Perón had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric

and "contempt for economic realities" lived on. Argentina 's federal

government continued to spend far beyond its means.

Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized

by "industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on

increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy."

The Argentinean government's practice of printing money to pay off

its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%,

reminiscent of the Weimar Republic . Food riots were rampant;

stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.

And by 1994, Argentina 's public pensions -- the equivalent of our

Social Security -- had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%,

but it wasn't enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a

value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth,

and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises.

These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.

A government-controlled "privatization" effort to rescue senior's pensions

was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the

government, the monies replaced by Argentina 's defaulted government bonds.

By 2002, "government fiscal irresponsibility induced a national

economic crisis as severe as America 's Great Depression."

In 1902, Argentina was one of the world's richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later,

it is a poverty-stricken country, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought.



We've seen this movie before. The Democrats' populist plans can't possibly work

because the government will bankrupt everything it touches. History teaches us that ObamaCare and

unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters in the future.

Today's Democrats are guilty of more than stupidity;

they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery.

And they will be long gone when it all implodes.

They will be as cold and dead as Juan Perón when the piper must ultimately be paid.

This is a very good perspective on where we are headed
unless we very quickly change that bunch of idiots in Washington !!!





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

Unconstitutional Charity?

In my last post, I asked what government programs could be considered unconstitutional; and even if they aren't, should we consider keeping them regardless?  The argument breaks down to how the constitution is viewed.  One side believes that our government was founded by men inspired to create an exceptional form of governance dedicated to maintaining freedom through the ages.  The other side views the constitution as a "living document " that changes with time to fit into an ever-changing society.  I believe that our nation's founders were men inspired of God and that the Constitution is sacrosanct and that the federal government should do only what is enumerated in this exceptional document.  Since the 1930s through today our government has spent phenomenal amounts of money to improve our society.  What is often overlooked is the power gained by Congress and presidents; they are essentially bribing the electorate with their own money.

  I recommend that everyone read the following link, an excerpt from the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett written by fellow congressman Edward S. Ellis.  Ellis tells of a bill in Congress that would pay money to the widow of a military veteran.  Davey Crockett stood in opposition of said bill and because of Crockett's speech the bill was voted down. When Ellis asked why Crockett would oppose this humanitarian gesture from Congress, he told of an encounter with one of his constituents who was going to vote against him in the next election because of Crockett's vote on an earlier bill (a bill that would pay to reconstruct a widow's house after a fire). The reason this constituent would be against this outpouring of good will is illuminating and instructional.

 In the speech that Crockett gave in opposition to the bill, he offered to pay a week's salary to start a fund for the widow.  No other congressman would put up their own money. It is far too easy to spend other people's money and without personal commitment, how can it be considered charity?

Original Intent?

During the town hall meetings last year, it was asked of our representatives and sentators, "Where in the Federal Constitution is it written that the government should run our health care system?"  This is a valid question,  a just question,  a question that is overdue in the asking.  What begs to be asked is what other programs have been started and run by the Federal government that is not enumerated by the Constitution?  Arguably, Social Security,  Medicare,  Medicaid and hundreds of other programs, subsidies and mandates are not in the purview of the Constitution.  Would we be better off if these programs did not exist?  Are there programs that would best be run by the Fed that is not enumerated in the constitution?  I will share my viewpoint in my next post, but I wanted to hear from others first.

Sponsored by the Independence Institute


Rally @ the Capitol to Exempt Colorado from Obama Care!



When: January 19th @ Noon



Where: West steps, Capitol building



Why: To defend state's rights against Obama Care!



Speakers: Jon Caldara, President of the Independence Institute, Representative Cindy Acree, and more to be announced later!

...It's good to remember that the states created the federal government and not the other way around. As Obama Care becomes closer to reality, we in Colorado have the right to say "No." This is a chance for freedom loving people from across the state to come together and send the Colorado General assembly a simple message: Defend Colorado against Obama Care in the legislature, or we the people will do it at the ballot...



At the rally, we will be introducing language for a ballot initiative to amend the Colorado Constitution to excempt Colorado from Obama Care. We need to send a very strong and unified message to lawmakers that while we want them to say yes to defending Colorado, we are also ready, willing and able to move forward with the citizen initative process should the legislature fail us.