About a quarter of my way through writing the treatise below the asterisk line, I realized I was on enough of a roll that it would warrant further publication as the central essay in addition to an entry in a Facebook discussion thread.
The full discussion can be read on columnist Tom Lucente's page in order to get the full context as well as understand several references I make below to others' comments.
**********
There are so many false premises and technical points being slung around in this exchange, I don't know where to begin -- my off-kilter state due to working 3rd shift isn't helping me, either.
However, I'll start by pointing out the obvious that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "Underwear Bomber") and how his actions relate to present TSA policy are moot beyond description. Let's not forget, HE BOARDED FLIGHTS IN AFRICA AND AMSTERDAM that were en route to the U.S., HE DID NOT EXPLOIT ANY SECURITY MEASURES IN U.S. AIRPORTS. So, the argument that the new measures are necessary to prevent "the next underwear bomber attempt" is false, false, and -- oh yeah -- FALSE.
What would have prevented Abdulmutallab's attempt on a Detroit-bound flight?
How about if SOMEONE AT DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY WOULD HAVE EXTRACTED THEIR CRANIUMS FROM THEIR RECTAL EXPANSES and paid attention when Abdulmutallab's own father went to the U.S. Embassy and ATTEMPTED TO ALERT CIA OFFICERS THERE OF HIS SON'S INVOLVEMENT WITH ISLAMIC RADICALS.
The ultimate point that has not yet been spelled-out in the outrage over the increasingly intrusive nature of the updated airport so-called security measures is that it's effect -- either by design or circumstance -- is to condition us ever further toward accepting conditions of living within our own borders that rightfully ought to be unacceptable.
They are unacceptable if you have read the Constitution and devoted any time to study and understand its original, founding meanings and intents.
And, it's a shame those last two points even require spelling out.
To bring up the players in the OK City bombing, Columbine, VA Tech, or the Manson gang and compare and contrast those examples against what is a response to the threat of radical Islamic terror makes no sense. None of them had anything to do with mass transit within the U.S. or jihad being waged by an organized international outfit such as al Qaeda. With one exception, they all were individuals reacting to their own detachment from reality.
McVeigh tried to join the Michigan Militia. But, they asked him to never come near them again with the message in essence being, "You're too nuts for us."
The closest thing to an exception is Manson, who organized a "family" around himself. But, none of those examples cited above were acting in the name of Allah, Jesus, Buddha, or Bozo the Clown or as part of a global network of like-minded other combatants pursuing the exact same ends elsewhere in the world.
Next, the ultimate problem with profiling of Muslims is the fact that those who are "identifying themselves as Muslims" when they board a plane in the manner Juan Williams described in his well-known comments are almost assuredly not going to engage in terror activity on it.
I point this out based on the fact the 19 al Qaeda hijackers who boarded their planes were not dressed in any manner that would lead anyone to believe they embraced a sense of Middle Eastern identity. They all were dressed to blend in and not draw attention to themselves -- which is what makes Williams' comments all the more nonsensical.
Honestly, instead of dreaming up arguments to condition us all to accept what is rightfully unacceptable treatment in our own country, a major part of the solution to our security worries on airplanes is to free-up our 2nd Amendment rights aboard them.
Now for all you left-wing reactionaries whose sphincters just tightened up a few extra notches, perhaps instead of "reverting to the Wild West in the skies" as I'm sure you're ready spew-forth how about this compromise:
If you're active duty military (and possess a valid CCW permit if not traveling in uniform), then you may carry a firearm aboard that flight. By virtue of completing basic training (or, Boot Camp as us non-Air-Force-flimsies call it) you have demonstrated you have completed more-than-adequate firearm safety training and know how to effectively handle that piece.
Next, if you are a current, badge-holding law enforcement officer you also get a free pass to carry a sidearm based on all the same criteria listed above.
In those two instances, we now potentially have among the passengers aboard any given commercial flight a number of armed responsible individuals who have pledged an oath to protect their fellow citizens and are not just equipped to deal with a 9-11-style threat but enjoy the inherent training that better enables them to act in such an emergency than the average citizen.
Finally, please stop assigning racial bias to every opposing argument. Wasn't this supposed to end with the 2008 election? Zzzzz...
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Tea Party, Pro-Life movements do not require intertwining
Displeasure is heating up over a recent letter co-signed by a number of prominent bloggers, a libertarian commentator, gay-rights Republicans, and Tea Party leaders.
Steven Ertelt, writing for Lifenews.com, points out how these factions have come together to urge Republican leaders to keep reducing the size of government at the forefront of their legislative efforts – after making significant gains in the House of Representatives and Senate – and not emphasize social issues over the next two years to the extent that party has in the past.
On the Facebook page titled "Support Tebow's Super Bowl Ad" (a group for which I clicked "Like" several days before the Super Bowl was played), a spirited discussion is shaping-up in the comments section below expressing displeasure with this letter.
As a pro-life conservative and an active Tea Partier, I believe the letter's point is being missed. No one is saying there needs to be a shift in social policy platform by Republican leadership.
But, the Tea Party movement arose out of a general alarm over the insane pace of growth in the size of government in recent years (and that's under both major parties).
What Ralph King, with the national Tea Party Patriots Leadership Council, is trying to promote is for the Tea Party to remain focused on its core concerns that led to its rise in the first place. Also, as long as organizations such as Right to Life remain active and vibrant (my wife even was an employee of Right to Life years ago in Downriver Detroit) we can rest assured that this good fight is being carried-on.
Personally, I am of the mindset that the best way to protect life and traditional values is to reduce government back down to its constitutional limits. It is through the expansion of government that we have seen the implementation of policies, programs, and even entire agencies that serve as an assault on our Judeo-Christian values.
If we get government shrunk in this regard, it will invariably include elimination of federal abortion funding, Department of Education programs that promote counseling high school students about abortion without requiring parental consent, and other abominations.
But, making these line items the core focus of small-government activism instead of accepting that they can be the by-product of working toward its current central goal runs the risk of sidetracking the Tea Party's overall effort. The best results on both fronts is to let the Pro-Life and Tea Party movements operate in parallel with one another instead of intertwining the two.
One of the Tea Party's libertarian-oriented goals is to see an unnecessary federal department such as Education eliminated. When that goal is achieved, the goal to end promotion of such high school counseling policies will invariably follow. However, even if Pro-Life groups are successful in targeting these policies by themselves, leaving the governmental infrastructure in place that led to their implementation will mean leaving open the door for their reinstatement the next time Progressive Liberals regain control of both houses of Congress and the White House simultaneously.
The Tea Party was formed on the basis of conservative fiscal policies and greater individual liberty. Right to Life was formed on the basis of protecting the lives of our unborn. Both are working toward truly conservative ends. For either movement to take-on the other's fight means spreading their respective resources thin and risking falling short of their ultimate goal: preserving our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Steven Ertelt, writing for Lifenews.com, points out how these factions have come together to urge Republican leaders to keep reducing the size of government at the forefront of their legislative efforts – after making significant gains in the House of Representatives and Senate – and not emphasize social issues over the next two years to the extent that party has in the past.
On the Facebook page titled "Support Tebow's Super Bowl Ad" (a group for which I clicked "Like" several days before the Super Bowl was played), a spirited discussion is shaping-up in the comments section below expressing displeasure with this letter.
As a pro-life conservative and an active Tea Partier, I believe the letter's point is being missed. No one is saying there needs to be a shift in social policy platform by Republican leadership.
But, the Tea Party movement arose out of a general alarm over the insane pace of growth in the size of government in recent years (and that's under both major parties).
What Ralph King, with the national Tea Party Patriots Leadership Council, is trying to promote is for the Tea Party to remain focused on its core concerns that led to its rise in the first place. Also, as long as organizations such as Right to Life remain active and vibrant (my wife even was an employee of Right to Life years ago in Downriver Detroit) we can rest assured that this good fight is being carried-on.
Personally, I am of the mindset that the best way to protect life and traditional values is to reduce government back down to its constitutional limits. It is through the expansion of government that we have seen the implementation of policies, programs, and even entire agencies that serve as an assault on our Judeo-Christian values.
If we get government shrunk in this regard, it will invariably include elimination of federal abortion funding, Department of Education programs that promote counseling high school students about abortion without requiring parental consent, and other abominations.
But, making these line items the core focus of small-government activism instead of accepting that they can be the by-product of working toward its current central goal runs the risk of sidetracking the Tea Party's overall effort. The best results on both fronts is to let the Pro-Life and Tea Party movements operate in parallel with one another instead of intertwining the two.
One of the Tea Party's libertarian-oriented goals is to see an unnecessary federal department such as Education eliminated. When that goal is achieved, the goal to end promotion of such high school counseling policies will invariably follow. However, even if Pro-Life groups are successful in targeting these policies by themselves, leaving the governmental infrastructure in place that led to their implementation will mean leaving open the door for their reinstatement the next time Progressive Liberals regain control of both houses of Congress and the White House simultaneously.
The Tea Party was formed on the basis of conservative fiscal policies and greater individual liberty. Right to Life was formed on the basis of protecting the lives of our unborn. Both are working toward truly conservative ends. For either movement to take-on the other's fight means spreading their respective resources thin and risking falling short of their ultimate goal: preserving our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Finally, a moment to reflect
Before I do anything else, I must extend an enormous offering of gratitude to all who assisted my congressional campaign, offered much appreciated support, and (most importantly) voted for me.
My reaction to the final vote count is a mixed bag. When you consider I spent less than $1,000 on my campaign with only $120 of it coming from cash contributions, to garner 7,499 votes in a region that votes solidly for one major party is – in itself – a notable accomplishment. But, I genuinely believed my percentage of the vote was going to reach well into double digits, as opposed to 3.74%.
In recent Gallup and Rasmussen polling roughly a week before the election, almost two-thirds of Americans believe our country’s two-party political system is failing us and harbor a strong desire to see a third party emerge that is dedicated to smaller government across the board. Which minor party might fit that description?
But as I do so frequently, I digress…
When weighing my decision to throw my hat into the political ring for the 4th congressional district, among the factors I took into consideration were two key sentiments that appeared to be trending among likely voters: the rapidly growing anti-incumbent sentiment and the already rampant anti-Democrat sentiment.
Well, I was right about the anti-Democrat perspective. Doug Litt drew less than 25% of the vote in the district. Based on past election results in addition to gauging the current mood, I was predicting he would garner below 30%.
The anti-incumbent wave, however, turned out to be little more than a pond ripple. Over the course of the year, I was bolstered by feedback from people who were steadfastly determined to support the notion of a “congressional reboot” on Capitol Hill. As one supporter put it, he was greatly appreciative of my candidacy because with me on the ballot voting anti-incumbent meant not having to vote Democrat.
I had every reason to believe many more felt the same way.
But, I cannot help but scratch my bald head at the results in other races in Ohio. In the 3rd State Senate district for the General Assembly, Libertarian challenger Bill Yarbrough was at one point polling ahead of the Democratic Party’s candidate, Mark Pfeifer, in that race. Yarbrough received 4.1% to Pfeifer’s 44.35%. What happened between August and November?
In Ohio’s 12th U.S. House district, retained by incumbent RINO Pat Tiberi, Libertarian challenger Travis Irvine had been polling as high as 10% depending on whose polling you read. Irvine received 3.23% on election day and he had run one of the most creative congressional campaigns I’d ever seen.
Both Yarbrough and Irvine were able to eventually do radio and/or television advertising.
Undoubtedly, the biggest hurdle for all of us to overcome was the fact this was the first general election in decades where Libertarian candidates could actually have a primary and appear on the November ballot with our actual party affiliation next to our names. Jeff Blevins, our second-best-performing congressional candidate with 6.63% in the 16th district, received a significant bolster from having his debate with Democratic incumbent John Boccieri aired on CSPAN. Jim Renacci, the Republican challenger who won that election, refused to participate in any debates that included Blevins.
Not being able to do any advertising myself, I had to rely on the handful of supporters lending me an occasional hand and a lot of time pounding the pavement in as many towns as I could in all 11 counties.
I wasn’t able to hit all of them, unfortunately. There were a lot of towns I wanted to and should have canvassed such as Elida, Cairo, Carey, Belle Center, Forest, Beaverdam, Harrod, and East Liberty. Should I opt to run for this office again, and of course depending on how the 4th district is reapportioned by a board that will see four out of five members from the Republican Party, I’ll have to make a point of correcting those oversights!
Still, every time I made my way through each town, I was encouraged by the feedback I received along the way. There were a couple of naysayers in face-to-face encounters, but there was an impressive lack of vitriol and venom on those rare occasions.
The most uplifting moment, though, happened ironically enough at the end of the Republican Party rally in downtown Lima that I crashed the week before the election. A fellow member of the Allen County Ohio Patriots grabbed my arm as we all were making our way to the exits and took a moment to greet me. She made a point of letting me know she was going to vote for me and concluded her comments by saying, “Because I believe in you.”
I was having one of those days when self-doubt was creeping in and left me wondering if my efforts were worth it all. I paused for a brief moment and told her, “That is the most important thing one could hear at a time like this.”
She immediately began to get choked-up and gave me a big hug. While on our way to our cars, I told my friend and campaign supporter who attended the rally with me about the exchange – and I began choking-up as well.
Between then and the election, I made a point of hitting five more towns to disburse my campaign literature.
I know there is quite a bit of discussion going around as to where the party needs to go from here. I don’t know what the future holds – either for the Libertarian Party of Ohio or my place within it. But, what I can assure to everyone is the fight for true liberty in America is just heating-up.
My reaction to the final vote count is a mixed bag. When you consider I spent less than $1,000 on my campaign with only $120 of it coming from cash contributions, to garner 7,499 votes in a region that votes solidly for one major party is – in itself – a notable accomplishment. But, I genuinely believed my percentage of the vote was going to reach well into double digits, as opposed to 3.74%.
In recent Gallup and Rasmussen polling roughly a week before the election, almost two-thirds of Americans believe our country’s two-party political system is failing us and harbor a strong desire to see a third party emerge that is dedicated to smaller government across the board. Which minor party might fit that description?
But as I do so frequently, I digress…
When weighing my decision to throw my hat into the political ring for the 4th congressional district, among the factors I took into consideration were two key sentiments that appeared to be trending among likely voters: the rapidly growing anti-incumbent sentiment and the already rampant anti-Democrat sentiment.
Well, I was right about the anti-Democrat perspective. Doug Litt drew less than 25% of the vote in the district. Based on past election results in addition to gauging the current mood, I was predicting he would garner below 30%.
The anti-incumbent wave, however, turned out to be little more than a pond ripple. Over the course of the year, I was bolstered by feedback from people who were steadfastly determined to support the notion of a “congressional reboot” on Capitol Hill. As one supporter put it, he was greatly appreciative of my candidacy because with me on the ballot voting anti-incumbent meant not having to vote Democrat.
I had every reason to believe many more felt the same way.
But, I cannot help but scratch my bald head at the results in other races in Ohio. In the 3rd State Senate district for the General Assembly, Libertarian challenger Bill Yarbrough was at one point polling ahead of the Democratic Party’s candidate, Mark Pfeifer, in that race. Yarbrough received 4.1% to Pfeifer’s 44.35%. What happened between August and November?
In Ohio’s 12th U.S. House district, retained by incumbent RINO Pat Tiberi, Libertarian challenger Travis Irvine had been polling as high as 10% depending on whose polling you read. Irvine received 3.23% on election day and he had run one of the most creative congressional campaigns I’d ever seen.
Both Yarbrough and Irvine were able to eventually do radio and/or television advertising.
Undoubtedly, the biggest hurdle for all of us to overcome was the fact this was the first general election in decades where Libertarian candidates could actually have a primary and appear on the November ballot with our actual party affiliation next to our names. Jeff Blevins, our second-best-performing congressional candidate with 6.63% in the 16th district, received a significant bolster from having his debate with Democratic incumbent John Boccieri aired on CSPAN. Jim Renacci, the Republican challenger who won that election, refused to participate in any debates that included Blevins.
Not being able to do any advertising myself, I had to rely on the handful of supporters lending me an occasional hand and a lot of time pounding the pavement in as many towns as I could in all 11 counties.
I wasn’t able to hit all of them, unfortunately. There were a lot of towns I wanted to and should have canvassed such as Elida, Cairo, Carey, Belle Center, Forest, Beaverdam, Harrod, and East Liberty. Should I opt to run for this office again, and of course depending on how the 4th district is reapportioned by a board that will see four out of five members from the Republican Party, I’ll have to make a point of correcting those oversights!
Still, every time I made my way through each town, I was encouraged by the feedback I received along the way. There were a couple of naysayers in face-to-face encounters, but there was an impressive lack of vitriol and venom on those rare occasions.
The most uplifting moment, though, happened ironically enough at the end of the Republican Party rally in downtown Lima that I crashed the week before the election. A fellow member of the Allen County Ohio Patriots grabbed my arm as we all were making our way to the exits and took a moment to greet me. She made a point of letting me know she was going to vote for me and concluded her comments by saying, “Because I believe in you.”
I was having one of those days when self-doubt was creeping in and left me wondering if my efforts were worth it all. I paused for a brief moment and told her, “That is the most important thing one could hear at a time like this.”
She immediately began to get choked-up and gave me a big hug. While on our way to our cars, I told my friend and campaign supporter who attended the rally with me about the exchange – and I began choking-up as well.
Between then and the election, I made a point of hitting five more towns to disburse my campaign literature.
I know there is quite a bit of discussion going around as to where the party needs to go from here. I don’t know what the future holds – either for the Libertarian Party of Ohio or my place within it. But, what I can assure to everyone is the fight for true liberty in America is just heating-up.
Friday, October 29, 2010
10 Ways I Have Distinguished Myself from Jim Jordan
10. I have discussed specific cuts that can and need to be made in Washington.
Jordan has offered platitudes, generic sound bytes, and vague proposals.
9. I have laid-out my goal on taxes as centering on permanently scrapping the current tax code in favor of a 10% Flat Tax as part of a 10-year (maximum) plan to transition toward the Fair Tax.
Jordan proposes making token, one-year tax cuts on a limited basis, which will do nothing to alleviate the market uncertainty that is squelching economic recovery.
8. I have made returning the federal government to its Constitutional constraints the focal point of my campaign.
Jordan never even uttered the word “Constitution” in any appearances we made together.
7. On legalization of marijuana, I laid out the case for it based on the fact it is clearly less dangerous than alcohol, can be taxed and regulated seamlessly under the same auspices as alcohol, and the ongoing prohibition against it is recreating the same disastrous results in our country as we witnessed historically with the 18th Amendment.
When asked to explain where he would “draw the line” when it comes to deciding which intoxicants should and should not be legal, Attorney Jordan ran with the literal definition of that phrase instead of differentiating between alcohol and marijuana, which was the obvious intent of the question.
6. I have been clear and unwavering in my opposition to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, arguing clearly on the grounds of its unconstitutionality.
Jordan is fully on board with it, which no real Libertarian – capital-L, small-L, or misspelled – can embrace with a clear conscience.
5. On immigration, I have outlined fortifying and completing the physical barrier along our southern border, drawing down the trillion-dollar war on drugs and redirecting much of those federal resources toward border security, coordination with state and local authorities, and reinstituting an Ellis Island-style format for entry into the United States by foreign nationals.
Jordan has rehashed completing the border fence (which all three of us running in this race favor) and then pumped us full of his feel-good story of witnessing a naturalization ceremony.
4. I have pointed out, in detail, that Jordan’s proposal for a 2008 baseline federal spending plan still leaves the United States with a roughly quarter-trillion-dollar deficit that risks driving the national debt well in excess of our GDP before we can reasonably expect to balance the budget.
Jordan has had nothing but silence in response.
3. I have explained thoroughly that within five years we are at severe risk of not only our payments on the national debt but also the staggering amount of interest resulting from it becoming the majority of federal expenditures if rapid reductions in spending are not made, as opposed to Jordan’s plan for a gradual phasing-out of deficit spending.
Jordan stared at me with a blank look on his face.
2. Rough and unpolished as I may be in my public appearances, I speak from the heart and tell you exactly what’s on my mind.
Jordan spits out tried-and-true talking points from the GOP campaigning play book.
1. I offer voters what the majority of us across Ohio and America have been craving: an opportunity to buck politics-as-usual by electing someone who will stand apart from Washington’s either-or setup that has seen both major parties trade places on growing government.
Jordan pledges to be a right-wing parrot who is perfectly content playing follow-the-leader behind John Boehner.
Jordan has offered platitudes, generic sound bytes, and vague proposals.
9. I have laid-out my goal on taxes as centering on permanently scrapping the current tax code in favor of a 10% Flat Tax as part of a 10-year (maximum) plan to transition toward the Fair Tax.
Jordan proposes making token, one-year tax cuts on a limited basis, which will do nothing to alleviate the market uncertainty that is squelching economic recovery.
8. I have made returning the federal government to its Constitutional constraints the focal point of my campaign.
Jordan never even uttered the word “Constitution” in any appearances we made together.
7. On legalization of marijuana, I laid out the case for it based on the fact it is clearly less dangerous than alcohol, can be taxed and regulated seamlessly under the same auspices as alcohol, and the ongoing prohibition against it is recreating the same disastrous results in our country as we witnessed historically with the 18th Amendment.
When asked to explain where he would “draw the line” when it comes to deciding which intoxicants should and should not be legal, Attorney Jordan ran with the literal definition of that phrase instead of differentiating between alcohol and marijuana, which was the obvious intent of the question.
6. I have been clear and unwavering in my opposition to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, arguing clearly on the grounds of its unconstitutionality.
Jordan is fully on board with it, which no real Libertarian – capital-L, small-L, or misspelled – can embrace with a clear conscience.
5. On immigration, I have outlined fortifying and completing the physical barrier along our southern border, drawing down the trillion-dollar war on drugs and redirecting much of those federal resources toward border security, coordination with state and local authorities, and reinstituting an Ellis Island-style format for entry into the United States by foreign nationals.
Jordan has rehashed completing the border fence (which all three of us running in this race favor) and then pumped us full of his feel-good story of witnessing a naturalization ceremony.
4. I have pointed out, in detail, that Jordan’s proposal for a 2008 baseline federal spending plan still leaves the United States with a roughly quarter-trillion-dollar deficit that risks driving the national debt well in excess of our GDP before we can reasonably expect to balance the budget.
Jordan has had nothing but silence in response.
3. I have explained thoroughly that within five years we are at severe risk of not only our payments on the national debt but also the staggering amount of interest resulting from it becoming the majority of federal expenditures if rapid reductions in spending are not made, as opposed to Jordan’s plan for a gradual phasing-out of deficit spending.
Jordan stared at me with a blank look on his face.
2. Rough and unpolished as I may be in my public appearances, I speak from the heart and tell you exactly what’s on my mind.
Jordan spits out tried-and-true talking points from the GOP campaigning play book.
1. I offer voters what the majority of us across Ohio and America have been craving: an opportunity to buck politics-as-usual by electing someone who will stand apart from Washington’s either-or setup that has seen both major parties trade places on growing government.
Jordan pledges to be a right-wing parrot who is perfectly content playing follow-the-leader behind John Boehner.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Jordan's economic ideas disappoint
Representative Jim Jordan (R-Urbana) may be among the most conservative members of the U.S. House or Representatives. That does not automatically mean, however, that he can offer any viable ideas on turning around our economy or controlling federal spending.
Among his top proposals for reining-in deficit spending is for the federal government to return to fiscal year 2008 spending levels and freeze total federal expenditures at such an outlay (approx. $2.9 trillion) as a baseline for future fiscal year budgets for an undetermined length of time thereafter.
So, what Jordan is proposing as a gleaming example of fiscal conservatism is instead of the nearly $1-and-a-half trillion deficit we face in FY 2010, we should embrace nearly a quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar deficit.
The first problem with this strategy is we still are measuring the federal deficit in terms of trillions-of-dollars. So, Jordan’s grand plan is to take the government from grotesquely unsustainable to only fairly unsustainable in its spending habits.
This leads us to the other major flaw in Jordan’s plan. Obviously what Jordan is trying to achieve in terms of fiscal policy is to prevent voter backlash against Republicans who start to promote cuts that are likely to prove to be unpopular over the course of the 112th Congress as well as freeze total federal spending at an amount that – in theory – should allow a steadily growing Gross Domestic Product to present enough of an opportunity to allow tax revenues to eventually eclipse total expenditures.
The prevailing logic is along the lines how the United States managed to enjoy several years of a surplus in the late 1990s, which topped-off at $122 billion.
However, one factor that was present 15 years ago which is absent today was our country’s rate of economic growth was much more robust at that time. And that was before the tax cuts in 2003 which appear to be set to expire in about two months.
The recent rates of GDP growth (which was 1.7% for the second quarter of calendar year 2010) have been as stagnant as America’s unemployment rate. Based on the latest economic outlooks, under Jordan’s plan we can at best anticipate bringing the U.S. government back to a balanced budget in 10 years.
In the meantime, we can expect to add roughly another $1.5 trillion of national debt on top of the $13.6 trillion presently accumulated – pushing the total beyond $15 trillion and likely leaving us with a national debt that will finally have eclipsed our GDP.
I also have to question how genuine Jordan’s pledge is to fight for real tax relief. During the October 12 debate, he mentioned supporting a number of temporary tax relief measures, including a one-year, 50% tax cut for independent business owners.
This also appears on the surface to make sense. But, in light of all the burdens being heaped onto the shoulders of business owners in America as a result of the legislative activity over the last 18 months, Jordan’s plan does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty stifling our markets.
Common sense dictates that a truly savvy business owner – trying to stay afloat during the current economic conditions – will hold-on to most of the money saved as a result of such a tax measure and put it in a rainy day fund in anticipation of when their taxes go back up. A healthy chunk of that money will go toward their personal finances. And, in the end, a very small portion will actually be applied toward hiring. Even then, most if not all of those who are hired during this time can expect to be laid-off again when those tax breaks expire at the end of the year as a result of those business owners trimming overhead costs in anticipation of the expected surge in taxes.
Businesses in America can have all the tax breaks imaginable, but they are not going to see real increases in revenue until the rest of us – those upon whom the independent business owner depends to walk through his or her door and spend our money in their establishments – have the financial wherewithal to perform that vital component of the economic cycle.
None of that can happen without two definitive courses of action taking place in Washington, D.C.: dramatic, across-the-board cuts in spending; massive, across-the-board reductions in taxation. This is how the crushing uncertainty preventing economic recovery in America must be dissipated.
Jordan has spoken at length about being the only member of the House of Representatives to have submitted a balanced budget during his time in office. He also mentioned that his budget proposal was shot-down by party leaders. What Jordan is short on when it comes to details is who in the Republican Party’s House leadership rejected his budget.
Where he disappoints me on that order of business is by only making the vaguest references in that comment – instead of calling-out his fellow members of Congress by name and pressuring them to do what is best for America – Jordan shows us that he has forgotten why he was sent to Capitol Hill in the first place. He was elected not to represent the interests of his party; he was elected to represent the people of the 4th District of Ohio.
Where he also is skimpy on details is when he discusses how to tackle federal spending reductions. In that first debate he mentioned the need to look through the various agencies and programs and assess where there are redundancies and inefficiencies. Can he give us any examples of such programs or agencies? After all, since he did submit a balanced budget for consideration, then surely he was aware of a number of specific cuts that his proposal would have made.
Honestly, he did read his own budget before sponsoring it, didn’t he?!
I’ve said this before and I’ll likely say it repeatedly between now and until God calls me home: no one in either major party is going to get into specifics on how they intend to turn around the federal government’s fiscal mess before, during, or even after the November 2 election. None of them – no matter how conservative they’re rated by various political analysis organizations – has the testicular fortitude to stick their neck out because of their inimitable fear of it ending up on the chopping block of public opinion.
I hold no such fear. I can tell you right now we can do without the departments of Labor and Energy as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. Labor and environmental protection are redundant by virtue of the fact they are the rightful domain of the states to tackle.
The same holds true for the Department of Education. I stick by my platform of slashing its budget in half up front, set aside only the bare minimum ($1 billion, tops!) to pay for the administrative overhead needed to pool the remaining $80 billion and disburse it on a per capita basis to all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on their enrollment totals. Once that is set in motion, they have three years to make the necessary plans to continue forward once that well goes dry.
But, at the risk turning this into a circular discussion, the states, local school districts, and local governments will not have the room to take on the proper share of responsibility if federal taxes remain so oppressively high and the tax code remains so unnecessarily complex.
Predictably, though, Jordan will continue to present to his constituents the vaguest set of specifics he can conjure despite the undeniable truth that governmental size and spending two years ago, just like it is today, is thoroughly unsustainable.
So, the people of Ohio’s 4th congressional district have a rare opportunity this year to initiate the beginning of the end of politics as usual. Every two years you get to vote for someone to represent you – but on November 2 you can elect a candidate who is representative of you.
You need to decide who best fits that description. Is it someone who has worked on the assembly line, been employed at your local charitable organization, held down both jobs trying to make ends meet, and had to figure out how to do that during two layoffs – someone who has walked a mile in your shoes?
Or, is it someone who clearly demonstrates that his top priority is – when the 112th Congress is sworn-in – to do little more than play Follow-the-Leader behind John Boehner?
Among his top proposals for reining-in deficit spending is for the federal government to return to fiscal year 2008 spending levels and freeze total federal expenditures at such an outlay (approx. $2.9 trillion) as a baseline for future fiscal year budgets for an undetermined length of time thereafter.
So, what Jordan is proposing as a gleaming example of fiscal conservatism is instead of the nearly $1-and-a-half trillion deficit we face in FY 2010, we should embrace nearly a quarter-of-a-trillion-dollar deficit.
The first problem with this strategy is we still are measuring the federal deficit in terms of trillions-of-dollars. So, Jordan’s grand plan is to take the government from grotesquely unsustainable to only fairly unsustainable in its spending habits.
This leads us to the other major flaw in Jordan’s plan. Obviously what Jordan is trying to achieve in terms of fiscal policy is to prevent voter backlash against Republicans who start to promote cuts that are likely to prove to be unpopular over the course of the 112th Congress as well as freeze total federal spending at an amount that – in theory – should allow a steadily growing Gross Domestic Product to present enough of an opportunity to allow tax revenues to eventually eclipse total expenditures.
The prevailing logic is along the lines how the United States managed to enjoy several years of a surplus in the late 1990s, which topped-off at $122 billion.
However, one factor that was present 15 years ago which is absent today was our country’s rate of economic growth was much more robust at that time. And that was before the tax cuts in 2003 which appear to be set to expire in about two months.
The recent rates of GDP growth (which was 1.7% for the second quarter of calendar year 2010) have been as stagnant as America’s unemployment rate. Based on the latest economic outlooks, under Jordan’s plan we can at best anticipate bringing the U.S. government back to a balanced budget in 10 years.
In the meantime, we can expect to add roughly another $1.5 trillion of national debt on top of the $13.6 trillion presently accumulated – pushing the total beyond $15 trillion and likely leaving us with a national debt that will finally have eclipsed our GDP.
I also have to question how genuine Jordan’s pledge is to fight for real tax relief. During the October 12 debate, he mentioned supporting a number of temporary tax relief measures, including a one-year, 50% tax cut for independent business owners.
This also appears on the surface to make sense. But, in light of all the burdens being heaped onto the shoulders of business owners in America as a result of the legislative activity over the last 18 months, Jordan’s plan does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty stifling our markets.
Common sense dictates that a truly savvy business owner – trying to stay afloat during the current economic conditions – will hold-on to most of the money saved as a result of such a tax measure and put it in a rainy day fund in anticipation of when their taxes go back up. A healthy chunk of that money will go toward their personal finances. And, in the end, a very small portion will actually be applied toward hiring. Even then, most if not all of those who are hired during this time can expect to be laid-off again when those tax breaks expire at the end of the year as a result of those business owners trimming overhead costs in anticipation of the expected surge in taxes.
Businesses in America can have all the tax breaks imaginable, but they are not going to see real increases in revenue until the rest of us – those upon whom the independent business owner depends to walk through his or her door and spend our money in their establishments – have the financial wherewithal to perform that vital component of the economic cycle.
None of that can happen without two definitive courses of action taking place in Washington, D.C.: dramatic, across-the-board cuts in spending; massive, across-the-board reductions in taxation. This is how the crushing uncertainty preventing economic recovery in America must be dissipated.
Jordan has spoken at length about being the only member of the House of Representatives to have submitted a balanced budget during his time in office. He also mentioned that his budget proposal was shot-down by party leaders. What Jordan is short on when it comes to details is who in the Republican Party’s House leadership rejected his budget.
Where he disappoints me on that order of business is by only making the vaguest references in that comment – instead of calling-out his fellow members of Congress by name and pressuring them to do what is best for America – Jordan shows us that he has forgotten why he was sent to Capitol Hill in the first place. He was elected not to represent the interests of his party; he was elected to represent the people of the 4th District of Ohio.
Where he also is skimpy on details is when he discusses how to tackle federal spending reductions. In that first debate he mentioned the need to look through the various agencies and programs and assess where there are redundancies and inefficiencies. Can he give us any examples of such programs or agencies? After all, since he did submit a balanced budget for consideration, then surely he was aware of a number of specific cuts that his proposal would have made.
Honestly, he did read his own budget before sponsoring it, didn’t he?!
I’ve said this before and I’ll likely say it repeatedly between now and until God calls me home: no one in either major party is going to get into specifics on how they intend to turn around the federal government’s fiscal mess before, during, or even after the November 2 election. None of them – no matter how conservative they’re rated by various political analysis organizations – has the testicular fortitude to stick their neck out because of their inimitable fear of it ending up on the chopping block of public opinion.
I hold no such fear. I can tell you right now we can do without the departments of Labor and Energy as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. Labor and environmental protection are redundant by virtue of the fact they are the rightful domain of the states to tackle.
The same holds true for the Department of Education. I stick by my platform of slashing its budget in half up front, set aside only the bare minimum ($1 billion, tops!) to pay for the administrative overhead needed to pool the remaining $80 billion and disburse it on a per capita basis to all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on their enrollment totals. Once that is set in motion, they have three years to make the necessary plans to continue forward once that well goes dry.
But, at the risk turning this into a circular discussion, the states, local school districts, and local governments will not have the room to take on the proper share of responsibility if federal taxes remain so oppressively high and the tax code remains so unnecessarily complex.
Predictably, though, Jordan will continue to present to his constituents the vaguest set of specifics he can conjure despite the undeniable truth that governmental size and spending two years ago, just like it is today, is thoroughly unsustainable.
So, the people of Ohio’s 4th congressional district have a rare opportunity this year to initiate the beginning of the end of politics as usual. Every two years you get to vote for someone to represent you – but on November 2 you can elect a candidate who is representative of you.
You need to decide who best fits that description. Is it someone who has worked on the assembly line, been employed at your local charitable organization, held down both jobs trying to make ends meet, and had to figure out how to do that during two layoffs – someone who has walked a mile in your shoes?
Or, is it someone who clearly demonstrates that his top priority is – when the 112th Congress is sworn-in – to do little more than play Follow-the-Leader behind John Boehner?
Friday, October 22, 2010
Jim Jordan, why did you need to lie?
It is expected, if not guaranteed, that everyone who gets into elected office will at some point or another lie to their constituents in order to maintain short-term favor with them. Far more often than not, the falsehoods they utter or publish in press releases are aimed at those voters who are on the fence when it comes to how they will vote in whatever election may be forthcoming.
But that does not make the situation any less perplexing when a politician serves-up a bold-faced lie to those who typically can be counted-on to be his most dependable voters.
Such is the case with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Urbana), who could not find it in his heart to be straightforward with the members of the local Tea Party organization based in Lima.
At the center of this story is Jordan’s lack of participation in the Abigail Adams Project. This is one of the grassroots efforts that sprung to life over the last year-and-a-half. Yet instead of involving demonstrations or protests, Abigail Adams Project is focused entirely on informing voters whether candidates for local, state, and federal offices support or oppose previous, current, or proposed legislative issues.
On September 9, Jordan showed up at the monthly meeting of the Allen County Ohio Patriots and accepted questions from members and anyone else in attendance. With the deadline for candidates’ responses to the Abigail Adams questionnaire looming, Jordan was asked whether or not he was going to participate in it. He told the members that evening that it was “under consideration.”
The problem with that reply involves a letter he sent to the Ohio organizers of the Abigail Adams Project dated September 7 – two days before the ACOP meeting. Jordan’s letter spells-out where he stands on matters of federal spending, abortion, and other issues commonly important to conservatives in America. The letter’s message, ultimately, was that he would not be going to their Website to answer their survey.
So if he knew on the 7th that he was not going to participate in that organization’s effort, why would he tell the membership of Allen County’s Tea Party group that in essence he was looking into it? Why not tell them the truth that he was letting it go by the wayside?
To the casual follower of such political affairs, this would seem like such a trivial matter and non-story. “So, he didn’t fill out a questionnaire.”
Here is the rub: as conservative as the majority of voters in West-Central and Northwestern Ohio tend to be and in light of the rise of the grassroots political action committee movement over the past 18 months, the Tea Party represents Jordan’s base. Much of the participation over the last eight to 10 months in the county organizations that have sprung-up comes from staunch conservatives – the people who would be considered his base supporters.
Why would any politician in his or her right mind so casually lie to their base?
And there still is more to this story.
At the October 11 meeting of the Auglaize County Patriots, which was a candidates night event, Ohio General Assembly incumbents Cliff Hite and John Adams – both Republicans – were straightforward in mentioning that the Ohio Republican Party had instructed its candidates specifically not to fill-out the Abigail Adams Project surveys. Also to their credit, Hite and Adams chose to tackle the Abigail Adams questions and not comply with party leaders.
In an election year when both the country and Ohio are expected to lean very heavily to the right at the polls, what could the strategy possibly be with refusing to cooperate with organizations playing a key role in bolstering the Republican Party’s expected large-scale gains in offices held?
One answer to that last question is the simple truth that Ohio Republicans have as little interest in acknowledging the legitimacy of or extending respect to the Tea Party movement as most Democrats.
We have seen this in Secretary of State candidate Jon Husted’s television ads which open with the Flag of Gadsden waving in the beginning and end with the narrator proclaiming him to share “your values.” Considering that Husted was Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives during the Bob Taft years – when state Republicans were running up spending and taxes like they were disciples of Jimmy Carter – such a claim is laughable and insulting.
Then there is the plight of would-be-candidate for Ohio Attorney General Steve Christopher. He would have been a bona fide Tea Party candidate had he been certified on the primary ballot as opposed to getting shafted eight ways to Sunday – when the Secretary of State’s office could not find the majority of the signatures Christopher had submitted (And this is not a baseless assertion. None of the signatures collected for him in Mercer County were counted – and I have spoken with Mercer County residents who circulated his candidate petitions and they still bristle when the subject comes up).
The ORP made no effort to investigate the situation and would not demonstrate the decency to even pay lip service to Christopher with any form of support.
And now, we have the same Republican Party establishment spitting in the face of an important Tea Party effort designed to help voters know more about how their candidates lean on various issues.
Jordan’s choice to lie outright about the situation has him falling right in line with his fellow Ohio GOP faithful.
As much as Jim Jordan likes to tout himself as standing apart from other Republicans when they are in the wrong, on this matter he certainly has proven himself to be a good little servant of the Party when they called on him to be one. What more could we expect from a lawyer turned career politician?
But that does not make the situation any less perplexing when a politician serves-up a bold-faced lie to those who typically can be counted-on to be his most dependable voters.
Such is the case with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Urbana), who could not find it in his heart to be straightforward with the members of the local Tea Party organization based in Lima.
At the center of this story is Jordan’s lack of participation in the Abigail Adams Project. This is one of the grassroots efforts that sprung to life over the last year-and-a-half. Yet instead of involving demonstrations or protests, Abigail Adams Project is focused entirely on informing voters whether candidates for local, state, and federal offices support or oppose previous, current, or proposed legislative issues.
On September 9, Jordan showed up at the monthly meeting of the Allen County Ohio Patriots and accepted questions from members and anyone else in attendance. With the deadline for candidates’ responses to the Abigail Adams questionnaire looming, Jordan was asked whether or not he was going to participate in it. He told the members that evening that it was “under consideration.”
The problem with that reply involves a letter he sent to the Ohio organizers of the Abigail Adams Project dated September 7 – two days before the ACOP meeting. Jordan’s letter spells-out where he stands on matters of federal spending, abortion, and other issues commonly important to conservatives in America. The letter’s message, ultimately, was that he would not be going to their Website to answer their survey.
So if he knew on the 7th that he was not going to participate in that organization’s effort, why would he tell the membership of Allen County’s Tea Party group that in essence he was looking into it? Why not tell them the truth that he was letting it go by the wayside?
To the casual follower of such political affairs, this would seem like such a trivial matter and non-story. “So, he didn’t fill out a questionnaire.”
Here is the rub: as conservative as the majority of voters in West-Central and Northwestern Ohio tend to be and in light of the rise of the grassroots political action committee movement over the past 18 months, the Tea Party represents Jordan’s base. Much of the participation over the last eight to 10 months in the county organizations that have sprung-up comes from staunch conservatives – the people who would be considered his base supporters.
Why would any politician in his or her right mind so casually lie to their base?
And there still is more to this story.
At the October 11 meeting of the Auglaize County Patriots, which was a candidates night event, Ohio General Assembly incumbents Cliff Hite and John Adams – both Republicans – were straightforward in mentioning that the Ohio Republican Party had instructed its candidates specifically not to fill-out the Abigail Adams Project surveys. Also to their credit, Hite and Adams chose to tackle the Abigail Adams questions and not comply with party leaders.
In an election year when both the country and Ohio are expected to lean very heavily to the right at the polls, what could the strategy possibly be with refusing to cooperate with organizations playing a key role in bolstering the Republican Party’s expected large-scale gains in offices held?
One answer to that last question is the simple truth that Ohio Republicans have as little interest in acknowledging the legitimacy of or extending respect to the Tea Party movement as most Democrats.
We have seen this in Secretary of State candidate Jon Husted’s television ads which open with the Flag of Gadsden waving in the beginning and end with the narrator proclaiming him to share “your values.” Considering that Husted was Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives during the Bob Taft years – when state Republicans were running up spending and taxes like they were disciples of Jimmy Carter – such a claim is laughable and insulting.
Then there is the plight of would-be-candidate for Ohio Attorney General Steve Christopher. He would have been a bona fide Tea Party candidate had he been certified on the primary ballot as opposed to getting shafted eight ways to Sunday – when the Secretary of State’s office could not find the majority of the signatures Christopher had submitted (And this is not a baseless assertion. None of the signatures collected for him in Mercer County were counted – and I have spoken with Mercer County residents who circulated his candidate petitions and they still bristle when the subject comes up).
The ORP made no effort to investigate the situation and would not demonstrate the decency to even pay lip service to Christopher with any form of support.
And now, we have the same Republican Party establishment spitting in the face of an important Tea Party effort designed to help voters know more about how their candidates lean on various issues.
Jordan’s choice to lie outright about the situation has him falling right in line with his fellow Ohio GOP faithful.
As much as Jim Jordan likes to tout himself as standing apart from other Republicans when they are in the wrong, on this matter he certainly has proven himself to be a good little servant of the Party when they called on him to be one. What more could we expect from a lawyer turned career politician?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Government’s role in social and family values
On more than one occasion – especially when addressing area Tea Party organizations – I have been asked to explain my position on several social issues, highlighted by where I stand on alternative lifestyles and legalization of marijuana. For the most part, these questions are intended to create doubt about me as a candidate among conservative voters. Since I already have written at length about my platform on legalization – I would encourage everyone to read my blog archive on the subject – the focus here shall be on government policy for alternative lifestyles.
To summarize up front, government – especially the federal government – should hold no role in determining what constitutes proper values in society. Values are a matter to be decided by the individual and the family.
My incumbent opponent in this congressional race, Jim Jordan, has commented on more than one occasion that his platform includes defending traditional marriage. The problem here is his unwillingness to explain how he proposes to do that. Jordan is falling back on platitudes and generic, broad-sweeping comments designed to make the average social conservative feel good about voting for him.
What I’m curious if he can do is actually spell-out a legislative plan of action to achieve the above stated goal.
What I can do, in the meantime, is spell-out a host of reasons why government – especially the federal government – keeping its nose out of private citizens’ business is the best option in preserving the liberty of all Americans.
Honestly, none of the three candidates for this seat (Jordan, Doug Litt, or me) oppose traditional marriage. I believe in traditional marriage as much as either gentleman.
However, my challenge on most topics relating to privacy and keeping at bay government intrusion upon and scrutiny of personal behavior typically centers on arguments of a hypothetical nature. I commonly ask people on both ends of the (obsolete) linear political scale – liberal and conservative – if they can give me a guarantee that after the bills they advocate have been passed into law America will not elect to the White House someone with whom they so vehemently disagree that they would not want that legislation in the hands of such an administration.
When having this discussion with conservatives, I don’t need a hypothetical in light of the current composition of Washington’s ruling class.
So, if legislation existed today that put in the hands of the federal government the ability to affect a set of social values policies, are you perfectly comfortable entrusting that authority to a president like we have today who has made comments such as, “I wouldn’t want my daughter to be punished with a baby.”
Is that someone you want setting social values policy?
And then there are cabinet members with whom he has surrounded himself and are now in a position to potentially influence such policy. The list begins with Hillary Clinton who has long advocated for so-called children’s rights: children’s rights being nothing more than a code phrase for “eroding parental rights.”
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
Next, we have Eric Holder who has established for himself a pattern of arbitrarily picking-and-choosing when and when not to prosecute federal cases for dubious reasons as well as filing suit against state governments in an effort to brush-aside the 10th Amendment.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
And then there is Janet Napolitano who thinks so highly of our veterans that she attempted to sweep under the rug the infamous MIAC report that suggested (among other outlandish conclusions) war veterans returning home from the Middle East were increasingly vulnerable to extreme right wing propaganda.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
The list doesn’t end with ranking Cabinet members. There is an assortment of midlevel White House staffers to examine, such as Kevin Jennings who has been recorded coaching 14-year-olds on deviant sexual activity.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
Jordan’s assertion that he somehow can defend traditional marriage or any other component of Judeo-Christian values through an act of Congress is false on a purely Constitutional basis.
First and foremost, no where in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is Congress granted the enumerated power of regulating, sanctioning, or overseeing marriage.
Furthermore, as stipulated in the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In short, that means any law that may pertain to marriage strictly is the dominion of the states. Even then, I would reiterate my previous statement that marriage is a matter that rightfully falls under the essential American principle of individual and family sovereignty. In my opinion state governments have overreached with their respective authority by requiring all couples who wish to marry to procure state-issued marriage licenses.
The next point to be raised regarding Jordan’s rhetoric on marriage revolves around the potential for unintended consequences. My primary concern is the gradual relaxation of individual responsibility. We have seen this in all other aspects of “Nanny State” governance: the current welfare system has steadily drained millions of Americans of their drive and motivation to earn their income; modern public education has encouraged parents to lean on our schools for a source of absentee parenting; and, more and more industries in America have come to rely upon the myriad of federal subsidies in order to stay afloat as opposed to innovating new business models that actually work.
The same principle can easily overtake this aspect of parenting. If you believe in raising children to live their lives through traditional values, what will have a more lasting influence to those ends: once they’ve reached an appropriate age, talk to them and sustain an active dialogue with them about sex and sexuality as it relates to maintaining a healthy system of values; or simply fall back on the failsafe of decreeing, “You can’t marry someone of the same gender, the law won’t allow it.”
Such a change would not happen overnight. But, like the three examples listed above, the transformation of how people view this component of private, individual responsibility will come to pass before we’ve even realized it.
Last I knew, determining what is right and wrong for one’s children is not the place of any level of government. If God sees fit to bestow upon my wife, Marcy, and me the blessing of children it will be our responsibility as parents to raise them with traditional, Judeo-Christian values – not the government’s!
This is because we as a family, much like the individual, will be sovereign. As a result, the laws we pass must be written to respect the sovereignty of the individual and the family – not promote right wing big government.
Many of us today like to quote Thomas Jefferson’s piece of wisdom, “The government that can give you everything can take it all away.” The same logic applies to this discussion: the government that can mandate a particular set of values can turn around and deny you your right to live life and raise your family according to those values.
The simple truth is right wing big government is still just that: big government.
To summarize up front, government – especially the federal government – should hold no role in determining what constitutes proper values in society. Values are a matter to be decided by the individual and the family.
My incumbent opponent in this congressional race, Jim Jordan, has commented on more than one occasion that his platform includes defending traditional marriage. The problem here is his unwillingness to explain how he proposes to do that. Jordan is falling back on platitudes and generic, broad-sweeping comments designed to make the average social conservative feel good about voting for him.
What I’m curious if he can do is actually spell-out a legislative plan of action to achieve the above stated goal.
What I can do, in the meantime, is spell-out a host of reasons why government – especially the federal government – keeping its nose out of private citizens’ business is the best option in preserving the liberty of all Americans.
Honestly, none of the three candidates for this seat (Jordan, Doug Litt, or me) oppose traditional marriage. I believe in traditional marriage as much as either gentleman.
However, my challenge on most topics relating to privacy and keeping at bay government intrusion upon and scrutiny of personal behavior typically centers on arguments of a hypothetical nature. I commonly ask people on both ends of the (obsolete) linear political scale – liberal and conservative – if they can give me a guarantee that after the bills they advocate have been passed into law America will not elect to the White House someone with whom they so vehemently disagree that they would not want that legislation in the hands of such an administration.
When having this discussion with conservatives, I don’t need a hypothetical in light of the current composition of Washington’s ruling class.
So, if legislation existed today that put in the hands of the federal government the ability to affect a set of social values policies, are you perfectly comfortable entrusting that authority to a president like we have today who has made comments such as, “I wouldn’t want my daughter to be punished with a baby.”
Is that someone you want setting social values policy?
And then there are cabinet members with whom he has surrounded himself and are now in a position to potentially influence such policy. The list begins with Hillary Clinton who has long advocated for so-called children’s rights: children’s rights being nothing more than a code phrase for “eroding parental rights.”
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
Next, we have Eric Holder who has established for himself a pattern of arbitrarily picking-and-choosing when and when not to prosecute federal cases for dubious reasons as well as filing suit against state governments in an effort to brush-aside the 10th Amendment.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
And then there is Janet Napolitano who thinks so highly of our veterans that she attempted to sweep under the rug the infamous MIAC report that suggested (among other outlandish conclusions) war veterans returning home from the Middle East were increasingly vulnerable to extreme right wing propaganda.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
The list doesn’t end with ranking Cabinet members. There is an assortment of midlevel White House staffers to examine, such as Kevin Jennings who has been recorded coaching 14-year-olds on deviant sexual activity.
Is that someone you want influencing social values policy?
Jordan’s assertion that he somehow can defend traditional marriage or any other component of Judeo-Christian values through an act of Congress is false on a purely Constitutional basis.
First and foremost, no where in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is Congress granted the enumerated power of regulating, sanctioning, or overseeing marriage.
Furthermore, as stipulated in the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In short, that means any law that may pertain to marriage strictly is the dominion of the states. Even then, I would reiterate my previous statement that marriage is a matter that rightfully falls under the essential American principle of individual and family sovereignty. In my opinion state governments have overreached with their respective authority by requiring all couples who wish to marry to procure state-issued marriage licenses.
The next point to be raised regarding Jordan’s rhetoric on marriage revolves around the potential for unintended consequences. My primary concern is the gradual relaxation of individual responsibility. We have seen this in all other aspects of “Nanny State” governance: the current welfare system has steadily drained millions of Americans of their drive and motivation to earn their income; modern public education has encouraged parents to lean on our schools for a source of absentee parenting; and, more and more industries in America have come to rely upon the myriad of federal subsidies in order to stay afloat as opposed to innovating new business models that actually work.
The same principle can easily overtake this aspect of parenting. If you believe in raising children to live their lives through traditional values, what will have a more lasting influence to those ends: once they’ve reached an appropriate age, talk to them and sustain an active dialogue with them about sex and sexuality as it relates to maintaining a healthy system of values; or simply fall back on the failsafe of decreeing, “You can’t marry someone of the same gender, the law won’t allow it.”
Such a change would not happen overnight. But, like the three examples listed above, the transformation of how people view this component of private, individual responsibility will come to pass before we’ve even realized it.
Last I knew, determining what is right and wrong for one’s children is not the place of any level of government. If God sees fit to bestow upon my wife, Marcy, and me the blessing of children it will be our responsibility as parents to raise them with traditional, Judeo-Christian values – not the government’s!
This is because we as a family, much like the individual, will be sovereign. As a result, the laws we pass must be written to respect the sovereignty of the individual and the family – not promote right wing big government.
Many of us today like to quote Thomas Jefferson’s piece of wisdom, “The government that can give you everything can take it all away.” The same logic applies to this discussion: the government that can mandate a particular set of values can turn around and deny you your right to live life and raise your family according to those values.
The simple truth is right wing big government is still just that: big government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
