Category: Politics

Election 2012

In the course of this post I will be laying out my opinions, and while I believe everyone I know knows who I am voting for in this election I want to lay out the case for Mitt Romney as being more then simply the better of two evils without announcing my support for the candidate as a whole on the basis of his philosophy.

The first thing you must think about is the question; What is the first constitutional responsibility of the President of the United States? The primary constitutional responsibility of the President is to ensure the security of both our borders and personal safety as well as our interests and allies abroad.

I believe honestly that the Barack Obama that is on the campaign trail both in 2008 and 2012 states a foreign policy that actually conflicts with what President Obama has done, and I am glad that is the case. George W. Bush in an interview right when Obama was taking office said it best in an interview that “once he sits in that chair and it all becomes available to him he will change his mind” on foreign policy. From the immense difficulties of closing Guantanamo bay, to not moving up the scheduled end of the Iraq war (and not thoroughly stopping it then, we just handed over security in the country to american contractors), to executing surge-like tactics in Afghanistan before ever even starting to draw down forces. This leads to a less than stark contrast between the two previous administrations on foreign policy.

Now, after spending all that time saying that Obama’s foreign policy is similar to Bush’s why would this all important category be so important to me in this election? Because both administrations have failed on it in certain respects, and Obama while changing his tactics to be similar has made simple yet important changes that have hurt our long term security.

The first issue is that until now, no president or candidate for president has ever correctly assigned energy independence as a national security issue. Mitt Romney has made that case. We are dependent on foreign oil that largely comes from dictators and unstable middle eastern countries. Why is (outside of Israel) Iran such a huge national interest? Oil, gas, plastic, pharmaceuticals, and any number of other things come from oil and these products have HUGE implications on the cost to those making under 250k a year (to borrow Obama’s terminology). Why is that? Because we, as the #1 country in oil and gas reserves in the world, have decided not to pursue our natural resources. We have, for decades, chosen to rely on the international market while making a minimal contribution to the market.

Why is it that we have done it? I can only speak of recently, but it is the false science known as Global Warming, no wait, Climate change, no….Climate disruption. This hoax of anthropomorphic global warming that was built by frauds, and perpetuated by fraud and deceit on government payroll. But lets say you disagree with me on that. The money profited from new oil reserves could be used by companies to develop the replacement to traditional fuel and oil products. Remember, its not just gas, but all manner of personal products that use carbon based oil and fuels. If, down the road, government wanted to invest even further into green technology, the taxes from the profit would put us in a position to possibly be able to, tho we are in no place to do it now yet we do when the technology is clearly not ready for prime time.

The next reason is clearly the fact that Obama has made nice with those who stand against us and abandoned our allies, in particular Israel, but also many numbers of other allies. He has taken Neville Chamberlayne’s foreign policy of appeasement and applied it on a grand scale. This has made us appear weak in the international community. The international community tends to like a weakened America, so of course they prefer Obama. It gives them at least a perceived opportunity of taking our mantle.

It must be made clear that under the constitution the President has little power over the economy. Bills under taxing and budgets must originate in the house of representatives and of course be passed by the senate. The best a president can do is to veto a misplaced bill that ends up on his desk. He can recommend, even draft a bill (although any person in the country has the power to draft a bill) but he cannot pass any bill single-handedly. He does have the power to overturn any executive order without any legislation, and in recent years presidents have used executive orders in counter-constitutional ways creating a legislative initiative said to only work within the bounds of another bill but in reality has no  bearing on the previous bearings of the bill.

Mitt Romney has shown one thing consistently in his life to my estimation. That consistency is that whatever solutions he believes are best he does believe that the crux of the solutions must come from the state and local governments and that that is where the power belongs. I contend that the reason that Bill Clinton governed more conservatively then Hillary would have is because he was a governor, as was Romney, both in states where the other party is more traditionally a power in the state. They both had experience with working through differences and working with the other party, which in certain situations can be seen as a flaw, and in others it could be seen as a strength.
When you have the backdrop of the divide happening in this country this should be a welcome change to most.

Just two of a great number of examples of how he holds people that disagree with him in contempt. I know, there could be a reference to a misguided comment where Mitt Romney confuses the 47% argument (being unfair that 53% of the US public pays 100% of the taxes in federal income taxes) with the truth that there are a great many people that rely on government for their sustenance and will never vote for anyone who would reduce that because they have been lulled into a false security of being taken care of by government, and I contend that is the reason for the breadth being added to any number of safety net programs.

But lets talk about those in the 47% that pay no income taxes. Is it true they pay no taxes? Some do not pay any, this is true, however there is a hidden tax that every human being in this country pays either through price of products on the shelf, price at the pump, or electric bills even for those who are subsidized for that rarely covers the entire cost of those bills.

Unemployment today is 7.9%, up by .1% from when he took office. By standards that we had during the great depression it is approx 23%. That takes into account people who have given up or run out of benefits and those working part time when they need a full time job.

We have spent an unprecedented amount of money that is borrowed on stimulative measures in order to “keep unemployment under 8% and by november 2012 be at 5.2%” And that is just one more  broken promise.

This is the one thing that if followed through on that really would have garnered some respect out of even me. Even a conservative who believes counter to everything the man stands for, could have garnered some respect. Unfortunately, it never happened. Transparency of government should happen in all matters not of sensitive nature.

And for those of you out there that are Christians, this is a general overview that surmises why I believe as I do and why my vote will be for Mitt Romney tomorrow.

I will vote for the most pro-life candidate, because God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17).

I will vote for the most pro-Israel candidate, because God blesses those who blesses Israel & curses those who don’t (Genesis 12:3).

I will vote for the most pro-debt reduction candidate, because the borrower is servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).

I will vote for the most pro-work candidate because God says if a man not work , let him not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

I will vote for the most pro-marriage candidate ,because God is for marriage as defined in Genesis 2:24 .

I will vote for the candidate who most closely believes government’s purpose is to reward the good & punish the evil (Romans 13).
I will vote based as close as I can on God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16).
Whoever gets elected, God is the one who sets those in authority and takes them out (Daniel 2:21).
If we are ever to grow as a country and get back to what our country is founded on we absolutely must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and what he has shaped the democratic party to become. If you believe differently and believe in a more liberal government, then we must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and the new democratic way in order to be able to afford the policies you would like to have. If you believe in libertarian philosophy and politics, we must get away from Barack Obama and the new democratic way in order to ever have a chance to beat back government in any area. If you, like I, am a federalist and believe that issues are best dealt with the closer to the individual as possible we must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and the new democratic way. If we are to survive as the shining city on the hill that we have been for the past 200+ years we must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and the new democratic way. If you believe, as I do that a two party system is insufficient to represent the whole of the United States we must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and the new democratic way.
There is only one person to vote for to get away from these policies and to get back to sound government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that candidate is Mitt Romney.

Death and Taxes. The two inescapable realities of life that are constant through all civilized history. After all, you need to fund government right?

Continue reading

Now we get to what I see as the most dangerous problem that is developing in our society. The first massive expansion of governments taxation power outside of the 16th amendment by using its language to say that it was ok. It actually has some correlation to the Affordable Care Act in how it was said to be constitutional in spite of the fact that the majority actually saw it as unconstitutional at the time.

Continue reading

My whole life I have to say that the most difficult subject to discuss in conservative circles is Foreign Policy. To me, the conservative approach to Foreign Policy is not as simple as just spending a ton of money to overwhelm the opposition. It is a combination about a rule of engagement that makes sense, an efficient use of funds to maximize the amount of use every dollar gets, the limitation on foreign (and in particular chinese) parts and weapons we buy for the military, and strategic deployments to be able to afford for a quick response to any threat to us, or our allies.

Continue reading

I started on the adventure that is blogging and tweeting about politics with what I thought was a whole understanding of what the conservative movement was about.  After the last nine months I have begun to question this understanding; not insomuch as I am wrong, but because I do not see the values consistently followed in what is considered the conservative movement.   This is part 1 of a series of posts which I am not sure how many parts there will be. The last post in this series will be specific as to what I am seeing since joining the “blogo-twittersphere”. I may have to make it an e-book at the end.

Continue reading

Shocking, isn’t it? Starting out a post comparing two players that seemingly have starkly different realities. And don’t get me wrong, Tebow is not as good a football player as Lebron is a basketball player and I do believe overall Tebow is a more principled person then Lebron is particularly from the viewpoint like mine of a Christian.

Continue reading

If ever someone wanted to make me feel like I have no vote in an electoral process it is now working. Sure, I can vote and my vote be counted in November. But in the nomination process there are a slew of things that means to me that it is pointless to vote at all.


Case #1 : While this year’s impact of this was diminished by the plethora of delegates that were assigned based on percentage of vote instead of all delegates from one state going to the candidate who won that state the idea that early primary and caucus states hold so much power to decide who is the nominee effectively eliminates the importance of votes held in late primaries.


Case #2 : Caucuses are a nightmare where someone can get 10% of the vote and still get the majority of the delegates. Although, I will say that the only people I see reporting that this has happened are from Ron Paul’s camp, but I do see how these rules can lead to it. In Mass. its supposed to be binding proportional vote delegates which Romney won all of them. Ron Paul has suspended his attempt to garner another vote, but yet is picking up delegates anyway.


Case #3 : Some states have ridiculous rules for getting on the ballot. I know “its the rules you must live by them”, but that doesn’t mean they are not broken. To have a primary in virginia leaving out all but two candidates is infuriating and embarrassing and led to me literally not having a vote in the primary. All this on a technicality and I would argue a flawed premise. Say I was active in getting signatures…I wouldn’t have been doing so for Rick Santorum (who I would have voted for) I would have been doing so for Michelle Bachmann who I ended up deciding not to vote for because she did not run a strong enough campaign to win anything. So, theoretically while I could’ve replaced one of those out of states signature takers that got thrown out, I wouldn’t have known to do so at the time. Major candidates, heck, all candidates running should be on the ballot to allow for everyone to have a vote.


Case #4 : Open primaries/caucuses. The idea that someone that is registered in the  other party can cross party lines to vote on a nomination is ridiculous.


Lets say that stuff coming out about Ron Paul winning delegates is true. What happens if somehow he did win the nomination (which he is not, it is not a mathematical possibility unless they suspend election rules) by gaining delegates when he did not win the vote for those delegates. Tell me 1.) How is that ethical. 2) How do you ever expect me to support such utter disregard for voters and 3.) I can guarantee you I would not vote for a candidate who won the delegates without being competitive in the vote totals.


What we need to do, is eliminate caucuses, make all states delegates binding for the first vote at the convention, and schedule all primaries for the same day, or we can not count the votes until all primaries are done with voting.

While your answer may gravitate towards answering my question affirmatively this post will attempt to show that there should be and is a limit to which interpretation of the constitution is allowable inside of the constitution.

“General Welfare”

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but is restrained to those specifically enumerated, and . . . it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers. -Thomas Jefferson

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the “general welfare,” and are the sole and supreme judges of the “general welfare,” then they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the United States; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress, for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the “general welfare.” -James Madison

True meaning of 9th and 10th ammendments.

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people” [the Tenth Amendment]. . . . To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” -Thomas Jefferson

“I declare it as my opinion that [if] the power of Congress be established in the
latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations . . . of the limited
government established by the people of America.” -James Madison

“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government!” -Thomas Jefferson

“The states can best govern our home concerns, and the [federal] government our
foreign ones.” -Thomas Jefferson

“Commerce Clause”

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.”

-James Madison

“To make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”

-Thomas Jefferson

If we apply their words and the intent of the words in the constitution so plainly enumerated by our founders we will see that a majority of things that are handled by the federal government are not authorized by our constitution. Even shortly after the constitution was composed there were attempts to intentionally misconstrue the words of the constitution to grant more power to the federal government. These quotes were reactions to those attempts and thus grant context to what I say is the original intent and meaning of the words used in the constitution.

Just because you can twist the sayings with current grammar or current word usage to mean what you want it to mean does not mean that your interpretation is in any way valid.

One of the problems that has been one of existential importance in the life of the United States and its history is what can be determined to be a right, and what things we must pursue, but can never guarantee as a right to anyone. One of the largest divisive points in this country right now is whether or not there can be both a right of free speech alongside a right to not be offended.

Those who want this to be a right often use the words tolerance and acceptance in describing what is necessary to get to a world where this right is recognized. It is nearly always ironic in its application but I will explain what I say when I say that these two rights cannot coexist.

My name is Joshua Saunders, and as you will gather I am new here to and I am glad to be here. My family is unapologetic Christians that believe the Bible is the Word of God. This is not merely some religion I choose to follow. My faith defines me and without it I am not myself. My faith tells me that Jesus Christ is “The Way the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father (in heaven) but through me”. This means that I believe in a part of myself that is existential to my identity that if you do not agree with me on this point that you are doomed to eternal damnation. Most realize this about my faith, and will not hold that in and of itself against me in claiming to be offended. But this existential identity has consequences for my actions and words.

If I truly believe that this is the truth then I cannot sit idly by with this information. Think of it this way: You are pulled over to the side of the road trying to figure out a way to get around a sinkhole that has formed on a 65 MPH highway that is very deep. Its late at night, visibility is unclear and you see headlights. For me not to share my faith and tell you of the consequences I see for you if you do not share in the unbelievable grace of God who gave His only Son to us so we can not die but have everlasting life is like me standing on the side of the road staring at a car for five minutes taking no action to warn them of the sinkhole that I believe could kill the passengers in the car traveling at the rate of speed they would be traveling. It is almost spiritual criminal manslaughter.

But see to anyone not open to the sharing of the Gospel it is inherently very offensive. So therefore, there is no way to convince me with promises of tolerance and acceptance to not offend someone in this area of life. Thus in order to stop me from doing so you would have to compel me on pang of death, and if I am compelled to do so I still will not subsist in this ordeal you must not only deny me my right to free speech, but also to deny me my right to existence for exercising what is established as right of speech and religion. My very existence offends some that do not have tolerance for my viewpoint.

This principle can and will be extended to many subjects in life that are controversial. This is why I say that the purpose of the 1st amendment is not to protect just any speech. It is there to protect the most offensive of speech. If you know me in person, people by and large see me as a very tolerant guy. Just because I am tolerant does not mean that I do not speak out against lifestyles and choices I find dangerous or wrong in others.

I believe it is time for society as a whole to accept the reality of how life works. Accept that you will be offended. Accept that not everyone who offends you means you ill will. Accept that even those who offend you can also accept you for who you are as a whole and does not diminish their brotherly love for you. In fact, I would challenge that if a Christian does not offend a non-Christian at least one time in their life they cannot possibly love you.

Good evening,

I write here today because of something I find extremely important. Once again I am seeing pure lies emanate from the DNC/Administration and those that support them.

Here is that graph

1)This graph is factually and mathematically inaccurate
2)This graph is purposefully misleading into the question of what about debt is important
3)Reagan did increase the deficit, with a democratic or split congress thanks to spending increases throughout his presidency.
4)Reagan was able to pay for some of those increases in spending by increasing revenue over his term while cutting tax rates.
5)I will go through every step of the process of figuring out where the debt comes from and who is responsible.

This graph contends that Barack Obama’s debt accumulation was far less severe then any republican president since 1980. Wow does that ever look bad for a conservative doesn’t it? It certainly would if it had any modicum of truth to it, and also if the actual statistic had any true relevance to the question of debt added. Neither of these are true, and I will explain both the factual and philosophical problems with this graph’s intention.

Hopefully you can bear with me through this, as mathematical analysis is truly boring to most people.

First we need to ascertain the total debt accrued by each president in comparison with his debt upon taken the reigns of the presidency. The numbers do not start in January for each president, but in September as to simulate the fact that most policies made to change course in the economy take time to take effect to start to effect change in either direction.

Ronald Reagan started with a total national debt of 900 Billion dollars. He ended his presidency with a total national debt of 2.6 Trillion dollars in debt. This is a difference of 1.7 Trillion dollars. Percentage of increase on national debt was 189%.

George H W Bush started with a total national debt of 2.6 trillion dollars. He added 1.6 Trillion to the debt for an end total of 4.2 Trillion dollars. Percentage increase on national debt during his presidency was 62%.

Bill Clinton started with a total of 4.2 Trillion dollars in total national debt. He added 1.5 trillion in debt by the end of his presidency taking the total debt to 5.7 Trillion dollars. Percentage increase of national debt during his presidency was 36%.

George W Bush started his presidency at a total of 5.7 Trillion dollars in national debt. He added 6.1 Trillion dollars in debt to end his presidency with a total of 11.8 Trillion dollars. Percentage increase of national debt during his presidency was 107%.

Barack Obama started his presidency with a total of 11.8 Trillion dollar national debt. He has increased it since then by 3.5 Trillion dollars to a total of 15.3 Trillion dollars at the moment. This percentage increase was 30% at this point.

So if you believe that what is important is who increased the debt by the highest percentage compared to the debt he inherited…while the chart is proven an outright lie its premise seems to be correct. The problem with this thought process, is that this statistic is completely useless. If Obama had accumulated the debt he has since taking office in 1980 he would have increased the national debt by nearly 400%.

There are two stats as would be applicable to debt per president that must be taken into account. The first is debt accumulated per year. The second is the debt to GDP ratio increase per president.

Ronald Reagan accumulated 1.7 trillion in debt over 8 years. That amounts to 212.5 billion per year. George HW Bush averaged 390 billion per year. Bill Clinton averaged 195 billion per year. George W Bush averaged 752 billion per year. Obama so far has averaged 1.13 trillion dollars per year.

Ronald Reagan started out with a spending to GDP ratio of 21.7% and he ended with a debt to GDP ration of 21.3% . George H W Bush started with a spending ratio of 21.2% and ended with a ratio of 21.4% an increase of 1%. Bill Clinton started at 21.4% and ended at 18.5%. George W Bush started at 18.5% and ended at 20.7. Barack Obama started with 25% and this past year was 25.3%.

Barack Obama has had two years where the debt was increased by greater then 10% of total GDP in one year!

Going into Ronald Reagan’s presidency the debt ratio was 33% to GDP. It increased to 52% in 8 years. 2.4% per year. Revenue’s in todays dollars went from 517 billion per year to 909 billion per year. That is 75% growth in GDP in that same time period inflation was 43.6%. Majority of GDP growth vs inflation was after the much maligned tax cuts that were passed. The only tax increases that Reagan signed into law was a deal to cut spending 3 dollars for every 2 dollars that were raised by more or less eliminating tax credits, and those cuts never came to fruition causing him to say he’ll never “make a deal with democrats again” and the same ploy cost GHW Bush reelection “read my lips no new taxes”. He brought the top rate from 70%! to 28% and…revenues didn’t go down vs inflation. Obama took over with 85% to GDP, and has since gone to 102% of GDP. 17% in 3 years an average per year growth vs. GDP of 5.7%.

That puts things in a bit better perspective, but its not the entire story. After all those who know our constitution know that the executive only decides to spend the money allotted for each program. It is congress that actually allots the money to do so. Over the past 31+ years each party has controlled congress for 12 years and we have had split congress for 7+. Democratic congress’s average 616 billion per year in control. Split congress averages 415 billion per year. Republican congress’s average is 317 billion per year.

It is ok to have a different philosophy and ideology. It is even ok to argue (wrongly) that the deficit will never cause any problems long term (to which I point to greece). But you must do your homework before spreading propaganda. The graphic above is not only a lie, its a deliberate manipulation geared to confuse the real debate. The premise is wrong, the statistics are a lie, and its intent is to confuse enough people for those that care about the deficit and which direction it is headed to vote for the man who has voted for the most massive increase in domestic spending since the New Deal in the face of crippling long term consequences for all that can see.

None of these numbers include unfunded liabilities that will be incurred soon because of the influx of people in my parents generation joining the rolls of social security, medicare, and medicare part d. The blame is bipartisan, the solution exists outside the establishment of either party. We can no longer just hope for inaction of government to bring it back to earth like we attempted to do in the 90’s. We can no longer just sit back and trust our leaders that state allegiance to the party we most closely identify with will fix the problem. This problem will only be fixed if we the people continue to purge and pressure congress and the presidency to deal with the long term problems our debt and unfunded liabilities will impose on us all. Not just our children, but to all who live in the next 20 years.

We can no longer sit on our hands particularly when none of the candidates for the presidency seem willing to lead in all that is necessary in order to correct this problem. In my view, I’m not sure our country survives another four years of these policies particularly if it allows the tax rate to go back up for everyone. And be aware, the bush tax cuts (as there were two) both affected middle class and lower tax rates, and the first only affected those. Therefore allowing the old rates to come back will effect all of our tax rates, and cost us the very jobs needed to sustain our capitalistic society that are currently starved by statist keynesian controlled economic policies that have dominated the past century. Do not believe the lie that this is progress. This is a devolution to at best the model laid out by FDR, and at worst a continuance in thought that leads to a place that looks very much like a post-republic Rome where the president grabs the power, only never to lay it back down. We do not need a repeat of Caesar.