Perhaps it is because I have gotten more involved in party politics this cycle than at anytime in my life that I have noticed an undercurrent of "the establishment" wanting to direct the nomination and platform process taking place across the country. What I find most surprising is that this effort is taking place, in isolated pockets, at the local level, more noticeably at the state level and overtly at the national level. There must be a reason, but for me, I think the system works best when the people are allowed to make these choices based on allowing the system to work.
At the national level, it is clear that the party establishment is scared to death of having a conservative win the nomination process. All the establishment politicians and pundits have been badgering, bullying and bashing anyone who might want to support a Gingrich or Santorum in the presidential race. Why is this the case? Is it that they think a conservative cannot possibly win a national election? I think it really is that they do not want to confront all aspects of conservatism such as facing cultural decay, personal accountability and the reduction and reach of government. It is simply not in the interest of establishment party aparatchiks because they lose power when the agenda is expanded to include all four pillars of conservatism. The establishment folks, aided by the main stream media, think that pressing individual accountability, supporting the Constitution and protecting marriage and life are dangerous positions because of the "independent" voters that might be turned off by those who support a four front approach to government and governance in America. They are right to be afraid, but not because these causes lose. They ought to be afraid because these causes win, and by winning, establishment individuals lose power.
At the state level, we are seeing a lot of maneauvering by a particular candidate and his minions to take over control of state central committees. Though the process by which they are attempting this coup may be within the organizing rules of the party, doing so is certainly unethical as their candidate could not win at the ballot box, so gaining control of the rules is the only way they can get their agenda advanced. We are seeing this unfold right here is good ole Iowa, so I know it is going on across the country. If people are not aware of or are indifferent to these activities, then we are going to see the internal destruction of the party take place without a single vote being cast to counter. Conservatives cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and allow this to happen. I plan on making a case for making sure that our state caucus heading for the national conventioh offer delegate votes that reflect the outcome of what the party faithful offered on January 3rd this year.
In recent weeks, much has been written and discussed concerning our current Attorney General Eric Holder. Let's be clear, as our president is so fond of saying, that this attorney general may be the most corrupt and incompetent person to hold the job since the Nixon administration. He is a racist bigot who cannot see beyond his own hateful, willful and despicable world view. As such, his administration of his duties hurts all Americans and makes us all much less safe. He is supposed to be the chief law enforcement officer in the United States, defending the Constitution and all the laws of the land, but he is selective in what he does or has his people do and appears to have no intention of supporting the Constitution.
Aside from his egregious failure to support the Defense of Marriage Act, the Voter Rights Act and the Constitutional protections related to electoral procedures in the country, he has presided over one of the most dangerous policies to ever come out of any administration. His rationalizing the authority of this administration to assassinate American citizens overseas is beyond the pale. Though there are clearly black letter and precedents that allow such actions in times of war, this latest set of rules is frightening in its logical consequences.
To rationalize the assassination of Anwar Al-Awaki, the administration through its attorney general offered a set of rules that will allow this administration to murder Americans without the protections guaranteed in the Constitution. I do not care how hideous a person may be, no government, especially one constituted as ours is, has the right to do this without due process. The consequences of leaving this policy unchallenged is frightening.
I want to dispell something right here, right now. The central government of the United States does not dispense charity. There is nothing charitable about government at any level, especially at the national level. Government is the only enterprise in America that can coerce behavior. If one does not comply with government directions, one can be fined, jailed or both. No one can compel you to buy anything unless you want to buy it. No one can make you contribute for income distribution unless you choose to do so. The government can make you do these things through its confiscatory taxing system. Thus, government is not a charitable enterprise.
Far too many people who want to see good done in America have thrown in with progressives to make sure that income gets redistributed to people who are less fortunate. Of course, there does not seem to be any suggestion that personal accountability ought be part of the redistribution calculus. Further, the fact that resources (property) are taken from one person to be given to someone else without reviewing the personal conduct of those receiving the redistributed property is morally wrong on any number of levels. One cannot find any ethical template that intellectually supports these actions. Thus, not only is the government not charitable but it is also void of moral authority to conduct business in this manner.
The point is that religious organizations who see the government as an extension of their good works will find that in the end, the government will turn on them and will force them to violate their tennants at some point. How will the leaders of religious organizations feel about government determining that churches must now pay taxes, or that any speech, otherwise protected by the Constitution, could be considered hate speech. Imagine how the government might some day tell religious organizations that they can no longer meet as their right to assemble and associate could be construed as political speech that then voids all protections afforded religious organizations. It is silly to think that any organization should trust government to do anything supportive of the free practice of religion in this country.
Government is not in the business of helping anyone. Government today is about power and growth, because the larger government is, the more powerful it is. Politicians and bureaucrats alike are incented to grow government, much to the detriment of the people for whom that government was intended to serve. Wake up, folks, the government is about taking, not giving. Protect your freedoms by voting on November 6th of this year to rid America of progressive influences.
I think a lot of you have received my latest Voice from the Plains newsletter where I offer some thoughts on the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of this small research note is that all the protections in the First Amendment overlap and at times are dependent upon each other. Imagine how the right to assemble (and associate) might be affected if we did not have freedom of speech? Imagine where all of these protections might come into play inside our churches. The only protection in the First Amendment that might not apply in our temples, synagogues and churches might be the right to petition for redress of grievances. Then, being in church is really about squaring the books with the Almighty, isn't it?
The Obama administration and progressives across the country are scared to death of all of who believe the Constitution is not only still relevant but also a compelling and forceful part of what makes America exceptional. The progressives cannot control us if we still have our faith. This troubles them mightily. To enslave, they must disarm us and render meaningless the moral authority of our faith. Also, without the right to speak up, the right to assemble and its complement the right to associate and the right to have a free press, we would become enslaved almost over night. The tyrannical minority would run roughshod over the faithful majority. They have no power if we have God.
As we get closer and closer to the election this November, keep in mind that the progressives and the Obama administration will pull out all the stops to win reelection. They will lie (already doing it), cheat (ditto) and steal (have you seen the budget?) their way back into the corridors of power. We must do all we can to stop them.
Over the next several months, I will continue to advance ideas and thoughts about our Bill of Rights in my Voice from the Plains newsletter. Please sign up if you are not a subscriber. For those who are, please send my newsletters to everyone you think might like what is inside. We must spread the word about the threat of progressivism and we must continue to recruit for the fight.
As could have been predicted, the bait and swith on the part of the administration to now force insurance companies to "pay" for reproductive services has fallen flat with the nearly everyone but the useful idiots on the left. To paraphrase the general sentiment of all those affected by these rules--Does the President think we are this stupid? He must, or he would have done something else.
When the government tells private enterprise to do something--assuming they have the power to do so and in this instance they do not--consumers pay for whatever costs are imposed on the companies. This cost is essentially a tax that we pay indirectly back to government. We are not able to access our representatives on this, so it is essentially taxation without representation. Seems to me we fought a revolution over things like that and religious freedom.
Religious organizations will still have reproductive services as part of their health insurance plans even though "they" won't have to pay. But who will pay? Nothing has changed. The religious institutions are still being asked to violate their doctrines to make sure that all women have access to subsidized reproductive services, to include morning-after abortion pills.
The best road for the president and Secretary Sebilius to go is to withdraw the rules altogether. Wait until after the election so as not to offend too many people by November. Unfortunately, I think it is too late. The president has revealed who he really is and what he really represents, so getting this genie back in the bottle is going to be problematic.
If the president loses just 5% of the Catholic vote, 5% of the Jewish vote (and given his stance on Israel, that number is low), 5% of the female vote, 5% of the African American vote and 5% of the Hispanic vote, he is in deep electoral college trouble. He may come close on the popular vote, but he and the democrats are going to get their clocks cleaned on election day.
Perhaps we will look back in history and note that when a president tries to assume dictatorial powers to crush the Constitution, the American people would have reacted strongly against that individual and his or her party. I am guessing the popularity of the president is going to slide into dangerous ground over the next month or so. Ought to be interesting what happens. Right now, the administration is like a cat trying to cover up poop on a marble floor. Lots of action for very little results.
Page 7 of 43
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/impactwithclovis/public_html/modules/mod_latestnews/helper.php on line 105
Most Popular Articles
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/impactwithclovis/public_html/modules/mod_mostread/helper.php on line 75