Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Friday the 13th

Now that Friday the 13th has come and gone once again, it should be safe to talk about, right? No cause for alarm or panic, the world didn't come to an end.

For most.

But for many in a Denver, Colorado, neighborhood, the world may as well have come to an end, because it has been changed forever. It was changed by a student gunman who -- surprise, surprise -- one day before the Sandyhook anniversary and just ten miles from Columbine added his name to the history books. God be with the people of Arapahoe.

But what do we do about this senseless school violence? How do we put a stop to this parade of young killers shooting up theaters, high schools, colleges, churches? What cost is too high, what measures to extreme to protect our children?

Gun Control. Is that the answer? Ask anyone with anything more than just an opinion on the matter and they'll tell you that taking guns away from honest Americans doesn't take them away from criminals. It only prevents those honest Americans from defending themselves.

Concealed Carry. Do we institute and enforce concealed carry laws nationwide? And if so, how do you enforce them? Would Police have the right to do random checks for firearms or permits? I'm sure the ACLU would have a field day with that. And what of the first strange looking individual walking down the sidewalk with what looks like a gun bulging beneath his jacket? With all the craziness lately, you may as well shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.

My family was in a mall earlier this week in suburban Louisville, Kentucky, when a fire alarm started going off inexplicably. While several people reacted as if they didn't hear it, others responded by saying, "It does that all the time lately." Most people in the mall were numb to it. Most. But not all. My wife passed one woman who was quickly shuffling to the exit while her companion tried to keep up. The companion asked the shuffling woman where she was going, and my wife heard her respond, "There's a man back there with a gun. There's a man with a gun."

Of course, there wasn't. But there could have been (as there was in an Arapahoe High School two days later). And there was no panic invited by the shuffler's  proclamation. But there could have been. And in either case people could have died.

And as shocked as we are every time that this happens, we should not be surprised. Because nothing has really been done to prevent it. Which brings me back to my earlier question: how do we put a stop to it? I have an idea that would make some people happy, others not so much, but would likely make any would be shooter think twice before opening fire.

Open Carry. Let me first say that I think concealed carry laws are stupid. The only people who need to secretly carry a gun probably shouldn't be carrying one in the first place. It may make them feel safe, but what of everyone around them who either (a) doesn't know that they have a gun until it needs to be drawn -- which is already you too late, or (b) sees a suspicious bulge and becomes fearful of what they suspect is a gun.

My argument for Open Carry laws is simple.
(1) A gun carried openly by an honest citizen would likely deter a shooter who doesn't want to be shot before doing his damage.
(2) If guns were carried openly there would be less cause for concern when one is seen in public.
(3) If guns were carried openly, Police could easily check for permits without random targeting -- or profiling.
(4) If concealed carry was illegal, as soon as someone withdrew a concealed weapon they would be identifying themselves as law breakers.

Think about it, aren't you more concerned about someone who has something to hide?

If you have a better idea, I would love to hear it. Share it in the comments below.

Friday, March 26, 2010

We Good Europeans...

Mitch DanielsWhat's next for Indiana now that ObamaCare has become law? Some remarks from an incredible piece by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels in the Wall Street Journal:
Check to see if Indiana should drop its health insurance plans and dump its government workers into the exchanges. Paying the new tax penalty might actually be cheaper for the state, as it will be for many private firms. I'm not certain the same rule applies to government as to business, but since no member of Congress read this entire bill before the vote, I don't feel embarrassed about not knowing.

Call the state's attorney general to see if we can join one of the lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare. Yes, it's a long shot. But why not try?

We may no longer need the Department of Insurance since insurers will now be operating as regulated utilities under the thumb of the federal government.

...for the moment, our federal overlords have ruled. We better start adjusting to our new status as good Europeans.
Send me your comments. Joe





Monday, March 22, 2010

Help the Indiana GOP defeat Democrats who voted for healthcare reform

A message for the Indiana Republican Party Chairman, Murray Clark, forwarded without compensation or endorsement as a courtesy by Average Joe American. 

TIRP1 TIRP2

Dear Friends and Fellow Republicans,

Last night the House passed the Senate's health care reform bill by a slim 219-212 margin.  I don't have to tell you that this bill was an assault on the Republican principles of smaller government, lower taxes and more individual freedoms.  I don't have to tell you that this bill has a price tag we can't afford.  I don't have to tell you about all the back room dealings and underhanded parlor tricks the Democrats used to get the bill passed.  You've heard about all of it for months now.

While we should still be telling our friends and neighbors why this bill was such a raw deal for Hoosiers, it's time to put our words into action.  We must work harder than ever to defeat those in Congress who voted in support of this bill.  Rep. Joe Donnelly was for this bill, then he was against it, and at the last minute yesterday he voted for it.  Rep. Baron Hill has played the same game at every step in the process: Pretend to have concerns and then ultimately vote for the bill.  Rep. Brad Ellsworth, who will be running for U.S. Senate this fall, tried to hide from the public as much as possible and avoided taking a stance for as long as he could.  He, too, voted to pass this bill multiple times.  And we all know that Reps. Andre Carson and Pete Visclosky are reliable liberal votes for the Obama and Pelosi agenda.

The Indiana Republican Party is committed to defeating all of them in November.  If you are as outraged as we are, help us send a message to these Congressmen that Hoosiers won't stand for their lack of leadership. 

There is a long way to go between now and November, but we won't forget that Joe Donnelly, Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth turned their backs on Hoosiers last night.

Sincerely,
JMC-Sig-Revised
Murray Clark
Chairman
Indiana Republican Party

Share this on:  Facebook  Delicious  Digg   MySpace  StumbleUpon  Google  Microsoft  Yahoo! Bookmarks  LinkedIn

Paid for by the Indiana Republican State Central Committee.
www.indgop.org
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

This is a REPOST. I have received NO compensation of any kind for posting this message. I am posting it because I agree with the contents and believe in the message.

This email was sent by: The Indiana Republican Party
47 S. Meridian St., Ste 200, Indianapolis, IN, 46204, USA


We respect your right to privacy - view our policy


Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The Truth Behind Cap and Trade

VideoFound this little gem at GlennBeck.com.


Direct video link.

But seriously:


Direct video link.

Your comments?

Joe

Maddy's Cancer Battle







Wednesday, June 10, 2009

My Obama Presidency Predictions *UPDATE*

I was reviewing the predictions I made about an Obama presidency. Interesting to see what has occurred in just six months. If you think he hasn't accomplished much, stop kidding yourself!

Should Barack Obama fulfill four years as President of the United States, I believe we're going to see some interesting and some very troubling things throughout his Presidency. These are my predictions:

  • Republicans will regain control of the Senate in a huge landslide in 2010. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will narrow so much (in 2010) as to make it an insignificant majority. {REMAINS TO BE SEEN}
  • Barack Obama will make several token appointments (or offers of appointments) to Republicans and/or Independents in an attempt to cross party lines (thinking of the 2012 re-election campaign). Most (if not all) of those bi-partisan appointments will resign before the midterm elections. {Some token appts, such as the SECDEF, have been made. The resignations are yet to come.}
  • Barack Obama will speak about making amendments to the Constitution early in his Presidency. Congress might even concur and support prior to midterms, but the states will not vote to ratify.
  • Barack Obama's first budget proposal will include federal funding for stem cell research, federal funding to help unwed mothers pay for abortion procedures, federal funding to schools for sex education programs and contraception programs (he'll describe it as a program intended to reduce teen pregnancy) as well as contraception programs for low income women.
  • Obama's tax cut plan for the middle class will be lost among tax increases to fund increased spending and his plan to increase taxes on the wealthy to provide credits to the poor. The middle class will never see a tax cut under an Obama Presidency. {Okay, I was wrong here. We should all be taking home about $13 more a week. Whatever.}
  • We will find ourselves in an energy crisis similar to the Carter years, as Obama will refuse to drill offshore, will tax coal companies into near oblivion, and the country's reliance upon foreign oil will become crippling. {Gas prices are on the rise again.}
  • America will return to an Affirmative Action state, with preferential employment for blacks and hispanics mandated and enforced through tax credits and penalties. Whites will begin to become the oppressed class.
  • Obama will push legislation providing even more protection to the credit unworthy than the Community Reinvestment Act. This plan will include protection for credit card borrowers, added mortgage protection for struggling homeowners, and socialized medicine. If acted upon before the midterm election, the bill will see several rewrites in both houses of Congress and the final version will include protection from credit card debt, mortgage debt, and medical debt, but will fall short of instituting socialized medicine. {Socialized medicine is next on the agenda.}
  • Early in an Obama administration, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will announce her resignation. With a Democrat controlled Congress, Obama will nominate an extreme liberal to replace her on the bench, and Congress will confirm her nomination (yes, a woman, and likely a black or hispanic woman) quickly. Justice John Paul Stevens will either die or fall seriously ill and be forced to retire from the bench, resulting in a second speedily confirmed Obama liberal to the bench. The repercussions will be felt for decades. {I'm sure Sotomayor will be nominated quickly by Harry Reid and his cronies.}
  • The now liberal government will attempt to prosecute President Bush and Vice President Cheney for war crimes. {I think the verdict is still out on that one, but releasing documents from the Bush administration is a clear first step toward prosecution.}
  • As more states enact legislation legalizing gay marriage, the Supreme Court will refuse to hear suits to ban it, resulting in gay marriage sweeping the nation on the state level. I would expect to see additional vacancies to the Supreme Court result in more liberal appointments and further Court action to legalize gay marriage on a national level.
  • Private schools and home schooling will suffer greatly under the weight of mandated sex education, to include education that homosexuality is normal and okay. Home schoolers will go underground and faith based private schools will be forced to comply or be shut down. Public education will become over-crowded due to the lack of private schools and home schooling issues, resulting in poor education across the country.
  • Obama will attempt to fulfill his campaign promise on the Iraq war and will attempt to withdraw troops within 17 months. The progress of redeployment will be halted as terrorist elements will stage a dual attack on American troops in Iraq and on American soil. Obama will be forced to return redeployed troops to the region to restabilize Iraq and the middle east, and will order National Guard units to deploy on American soil in response to the attacks here. Martial Law will be all but officially declared in the new ground zero.
  • Obama will attempt to fulfill his promise of negotiations without pre-condition and will meet with unsavory foreign leaders on their own soil. He will suffer an attempt on his life but will receive medical treatment from US military in Iraq and will survive. He will suffer injuries that result in permanent disabilities. Obama's response will be that such an attempt would not have happened had we met with Iran, Korea, and Russia during President Bush's administration. {Remember the pictures of Obama with Hugh Chavez, etc.?}
I could go on and on, but it will only begin to sound more spectacular. I think we will see much more than we can even imagine at this point in American history. Most importantly, after the Republicans resume some parity (and possibly control) in Congress, we will see a Republican President returned to the White House in 2012. Much of the damage caused by an Obama administration will take several decades to reverse as a liberal Supreme Court will continue to legislate their liberal agenda from the bench.

It will be at least a generation before we see one party control of the Executive and Legislative branches again.

Your comments?

Joe

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Contact #Indiana Congressman Now About HR 2014

Indiana voters, ask your Congressman (mine, is 7th District Representative Andre Carson) to join in supporting House Resolution 2014. Click here for more on the bill.

Contact Representative Carson now!

A suggested form letter follows:
Congressman Carson:

I am an Indiana voter in the 7th District, writing to ask you to join as a co-sponser of House Resolution 2014, recognizing the service of the Womens Airforce Service Pilots with a Congressional Gold Medal. These brave women were pioneers in the this country, as they blew the doors wide open for women to serve in the military in all aspects.

Women today would not have the freedom to proudly serve their country if not for the courage and spirit of women such as America's WASPs. It is the very pioneering attitude of these brave women that made America a free country 233 years ago.

These women deserve much, much more than a mere Congressional Gold Medal, but this is a simple first step that you can take to thank these brave American patriots for their service to our country.

Your comments?

Joe





Friday, May 8, 2009

Contact #Indiana Senator Bayh About Senate Bill 614

Indiana voters, ask Senator Evan Bayh to join Senator Richard Lugar in supporting Senate Bill 614. Click here for more on the bill.

Contact Senator Bayh now!

A suggested form letter follows:
Senator Bayh:

I am an Indiana voter writing to ask you to join Senator Lugar as a co-sponser of Senate Bill 614, recognizing the service of the Womens Airforce Service Pilots with a Congressional Gold Medal. These brave women were pioneers in the this country, as they blew the doors wide open for women to serve in the military in all aspects.

Women today would not have the freedom to proudly serve their country if not for the courage and spirit of women such as America's WASPs. It is the very pioneering attitude of these brave women that made America a free country 233 years ago.

These women deserve much, much more than a mere Congressional Gold Medal, but this is a simple first step that you can take to thank these brave American patriots for their service to our country.

Your comments?

Joe





Monday, December 8, 2008

The Day The Constitution Died

You've no doubt heard of The Day The Music Died. Well, today could very well become known as The Day The Constitution Died.

Supreme Court turns down case challenging Obama's citizenship
New Jersey man claimed Obama was not a 'natural born citizen' and could not be president

 Tribune Washington bureau
10:36 AM EST, December 8, 2008

The Supreme Court today turned down an emergency appeal asking the justices to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen," and thereby, eligible to become president.

Read the full story here .

I'm just discouraged that the Supreme Court would ignore this issue, rather than hearing it and putting the matter to rest one way or the other.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

My Predictions for the Next Four Years

McCain / PalinShould Barack Obama fulfill four years as President of the United States, I believe we're going to see some interesting and some very troubling things throughout his Presidency. These are my predictions:
  • Republicans will regain control of the Senate in a huge landslide in 2010. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will narrow so much (in 2010) as to make it an insignificant majority.
  • Barack Obama will make several token appointments (or offers of appointments) to Republicans and/or Independents in an attempt to cross party lines (thinking of the 2012 re-election campaign). Most (if not all) of those bi-partisan appointments will resign before the midterm elections.
  • Barack Obama will speak about making amendments to the Constitution early in his Presidency. Congress might even concur and support prior to midterms, but the states will not vote to ratify.
  • Barack Obama's first budget proposal will include federal funding for stem cell research, federal funding to help unwed mothers pay for abortion procedures, federal funding to schools for sex education programs and contraception programs (he'll describe it as a program intended to reduce teen pregnancy) as well as contraception programs for low income women.
  • Obama's tax cut plan for the middle class will be lost among tax increases to fund increased spending and his plan to increase taxes on the wealthy to provide credits to the poor. The middle class will never see a tax cut under an Obama Presidency.
  • We will find ourselves in an energy crisis similar to the Carter years, as Obama will refuse to drill offshore, will tax coal companies into near oblivion, and the country's reliance upon foreign oil will become crippling.
  • America will return to an Affirmative Action state, with preferential employment for blacks and hispanics mandated and enforced through tax credits and penalties. Whites will begin to become the oppressed class.
  • Obama will push legislation providing even more protection to the credit unworthy than the Community Reinvestment Act. This plan will include protection for credit card borrowers, added mortgage protection for struggling homeowners, and socialized medicine. If acted upon before the midterm election, the bill will see several rewrites in both houses of Congress and the final version will include protection from credit card debt, mortgage debt, and medical debt, but will fall short of instituting socialized medicine.
  • Early in an Obama administration, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will announce her resignation. With a Democrat controlled Congress, Obama will nominate an extreme liberal to replace her on the bench, and Congress will confirm her nomination (yes, a woman, and likely a black or hispanic woman) quickly. Justice John Paul Stevens will either die or fall seriously ill and be forced to retire from the bench, resulting in a second speedily confirmed Obama liberal to the bench. The repercussions will be felt for decades.
  • The now liberal government will attempt to prosecute President Bush and Vice President Cheney for war crimes.
  • As more states enact legislation legalizing gay marriage, the Supreme Court will refuse to hear suits to ban it, resulting in gay marriage sweeping the nation on the state level. I would expect to see additional vacancies to the Supreme Court result in more liberal appointments and further Court action to legalize gay marriage on a national level.
  • Private schools and home schooling will suffer greatly under the weight of mandated sex education, to include mandated education that homosexuality is normal and okay. Home schoolers will go underground and faith based private schools will be forced to comply or be shut down. Public education will become over-crowded due to the lack of private schools and home schooling issues, resulting in poor education across the country.
  • Obama will attempt to fulfill his campaign promise on the Iraq war and will attempt to withdraw troops within 17 months. The progress of redeployment will be halted as terrorist elements will stage a dual attack on American troops in Iraq and on American soil. Obama will be forced to return redeployed troops to the region to restabilize Iraq and the middle east, and will order National Guard units to deploy on American soil in response to the attacks here. Martial Law will be all but officially declared in the new ground zero.
  • I do have a prediction about Obama's promise to meet without preconditions with leaders of Iran, North Korea, etc., but I think it prudent to exclude that prediction from this article for now.
I could go on and on, but it will only begin to sound more spectacular. I think we will see much more than we can even imagine at this point in American history. Most importantly, after the Republicans resume some parity (and possibly control) in Congress, we will see a Republican President returned to the White House in 2012. Much of the damage caused by an Obama administration will take several decades to reverse as a liberal Supreme Court will continue to legislate their liberal agenda from the bench.

It will be at least a generation before we see one party control of the Executive and Legislative branches again.

God Bless America (please). We are going to need it!

Don't believe me? Bookmark this page and check my accuracy over the next four years.

Your comments?

Joe

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Senator McCain's Homeownership Resurgence Plan

Senator McCain sent an email out to supporters describing in more detail the Homeownership Resurgence Plan he alluded to during this week's Presidential debate. The plan sounds reasonable. As I understand it, rather than taxpayers footing the bill for failed mortgages, the government would purchase failing, bloated mortgages that are about to be foreclosed. The mortgages would then be rewritten on more affordable terms, and the homeowners would continue to make their mortgage payments under the new terms -- payments that are more affordable and would keep the homeowners in their house and off the street.

For example, rather than losing their home because the current mortgage is for more than the value of the home and the payments are out of reach, the mortgage might be rewritten for less and the payments made more affordable. Instead of paying on a $300,000 mortgage for a home valued at, say, $210,000, the Homeownership Resurgence Plan might rewrite that mortgage at $240,000, greatly reducing the principle and interest and putting the monthly payment within reach, while only absorbing twenty percent of the debt instead of the whole mortgage.

To me, a taxpayer in his first home, who did not purchase outside of his means and doesn't really want to foot the bill to save those who did, this plan still sounds like the best option I have heard so far. The taxpayers get hit for some of the debt, but not the whole bill, while homeowners are given a second chance to keep their home. The market doesn't become swamped with recently foreclosed homes, putting the government into the real estate business, and the homeless population doesn't see a sudden huge increase. I could endorse such a plan as this, as I understand it.

What I would like to see is two additional things: first, the Community Reinvestment Act must be scrapped. You can assign blame to whatever party you choose, but Presidents from both parties have had their hands in the shaping of this act, originally signed into law by President Carter (Democrat from Georgia) in 1977. The law was bad then and has never become better. It virtually forced lending institutions to make loans to people who were financially unable or historically unwilling to repay their debt. That's not Capitalism, and it is not the makings of a free market Republic. First and foremost, this act must be immediately repealed, and must included legislation preventing Congress from passing the same act under another name.

Second, legislation and a plan must be implemented preventing double-dipping in the Homeownership Resurgence Plan. Those who take advantage of the plan must be held accountable for their new mortgage as should be expected of any borrower. There should be limitations put upon the beneficiaries of this plan that prevent refinancing of the new mortgages and bankruptcy discharges. This must be a one shot deal: either you make it under the new mortgage, or you don't. Those who show that they aren't willing to do their part to ensure that they keep their home should not expect nor be allowed to take advantage of the system a third time.

Senator McCain's letter follows below. [What, if anything, has the other party's candidate proposed?]

I'd love you know what you think.
Your comments?

Joe


My Friends,

Millions of Americans on Main Street are feeling the effects of our current economic crisis largely brought on by corruption and greed at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Wall Street. Our next president must come into office with a plan to address the very root the failing housing market.

Last night, during my debate with Senator Obama, I announced my plan to fix the root of our problem and I'd like to share a little more with you today.

If elected president, I will direct my Treasury Secretary to implement an American Homeownership Resurgence Plan to keep families in their homes, avoid foreclosures, save failing neighborhoods, stabilize the housing market and attack the roots of our financial crisis.

America's families are bearing a heavy burden from falling housing prices, mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, and a weak economy. It is important that those families who have worked hard enough to finance homeownership not have that dream crushed under the weight of the wrong mortgage.

For those that cannot make inflated payments or their mortgage exceeds the value of their home, mortgages must be re-structured to put losses on the books and put homeowners in manageable mortgages.

This Resurgence Plan would purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes.

By purchasing the existing, failing mortgages the resurgence plan will eliminate uncertainty over defaults, support the value of mortgage-backed derivatives and alleviate risks that are freezing financial markets.

I am ready to lead our country out of this financial crisis and I am ready to work with anyone and everyone who will help. Together, I know we can work together to find solutions for these challenging times. Please do your part today and spread the word about my new plan by forwarding this email on to your neighbors, friends, family and coworkers. Thank you for your time and support.

Sincerely,

John McCain

P.S. Homeownership represents the very core of our American economic system. This is not the time for politics. We must move aggressively to provide relief and stability for all Americans.




Friday, September 26, 2008

Senator McCain's Success This Week

McCain SuccessThere will be great conjecture over the weekend about what exactly, if anything, Senator McCain accomplished by suspending his campaign and heading to Washington DC to work on an economic rescue plan. Well, I'll tell you what.

The current Senate session was scheduled to end today. Based on the behavior of the Democrat leadership in the Senate in the past, they would likely have adjourned the session without accomplishing anything toward economic recovery. That's the way Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid operate.

Enter Senator McCain. By making the call to suspend his campaign and heading to Washington DC, he put the Democrats on notice: there will be no debate, no Presidential politics, unless you commit to getting something done on the economy. Without an opponent, what could Obama do? Stand up on a stage in a town hall meeting talking bad about the Republican nominee while that very nominee was in Washington trying to hammer out an economic reform package? That's likely what would have happened. And that would have made it very clear to the American people who was truly ready to lead.

Instead, the Democrat leadership in the Senate -- likely either pressed by their Presidential nominee or simply out of partisan politics -- called an audible. Harry Reid took the podium this morning just before 11:00 am and announced that the Senate was going to get this done. He announced that they would stay in session until an economic recovery package was in place. They did this so that Senator McCain -- who had said he would only attend the debate if progress was being made toward a recovery package -- would be forced to attend the debate or look as if he was trying to dodge it.

Senator McCain has now announced that he will indeed attend the debate. He will face off with Barack Obama in Oxford, Mississippi, while Senate and House Leadership tries to come to an agreement on an economic recovery package. Senator McCain has achieved what he intended all along: to get the Democrat leaders of the Senate to extend the current session and not leave until the situation is resolved.

Who is the winner here? In my view, Senator McCain's tactics worked. He went to bat against Senate leadership for the American people, and hit a home run. We, the American people, have won, as the do-nothing Dems of the Senate have been forced to do something so their candidate could have his debate. And the best part is, Senator McCain has proven his leadership skills without having to speak a word during the economic conference last evening. Having been accused of sitting in the meeting in silence, Senator McCain accomplished what he needed most of all -- to get some action from the Senate.

Kudos, Mr. McCain, and thank you for standing up for America. Now all that's left is to make Obama regret the mere thought of tonight's debate.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

My Thoughts on Saddleback and Why Obama Isn't Ready To Lead

Watching CNN's webcast of Senators McCain and Obama during the Saddleback Civil Forum, and a subsequent volley on Twitter with an inflamed Obama supporter, made me start thinking about what's really at stake in this Presidential election cycle. What really matters, and what is just hot air? I have been asked by some to elaborate on my thinking, and I will also share with you that Twitter volley I mentioned. This is likely to amuse some and enrage others, but I hope it will make just a few people give some serious thought to the issues that lie beneath the rhetoric.

Let me start by clearly explaining my position. I am a Christian Conservative, registered as a Republican. I do not vote the party line, and have actually voted for Democrat candidates in the past (not for President, but for other national, state, and local offices). I have always cast my vote for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. I believe firmly in the sanctity of human life and the institution of marriage (though I don't believe they should carry the weight that they do in deciding how to cast our vote in November). I believe that we pay too much for gasoline (regardless of what they pay elsewhere in the world) and that we pay too much in taxes. I believe that our political election process is the best in the country, but still far from perfect and in need of an overhaul. I believe that families should have the right to educate their children in whatever way they choose, so long as they meet a standard of education (which, unfortunately, dictates some form of testing for verification purposes). I do not believe that the constitution says anything about the separation of church and state (in fact, it dictates only that there will be no establishment of a national religion) and that if money is allowed to play such a major role in politics, so then should religion be allowed to assert it's influence. Our nation was established on Christian principles, and if we lose touch with those principles, we are no longer the nation that we once were. I believe that, as the longest enduring democracy in the world, we have a duty to foster freedom throughout the world. I don't believe we should do so by force, unless force is required to free a nation's people from an oppressive dictator who denies them of their freedoms and other basic rights. I believe that we must finish what we start, and that living with the freedoms that our nation provides requires from each of us a price to be paid in defense of that freedom.

All of that being said, I will now elaborate.

I am firmly pro-life. I believe that life begins the instant that fertilization occurs. At that point, it is not up to us to determine whether a person should be given a chance to live or not. At Saddleback, Senator Obama spoke of the need to find a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. He spoke of this as if it is more important than protecting the live of unwanted babies. I find it very difficult to place a higher value on the lifestyle of someone who has become pregnant by accident than on the value of that life she carries inside her. It is my belief that we can reduce both unwanted pregnancies and abortions by taking responsibility for our actions and not getting pregnant in the first place. It's a simple task, really. Don't commit the act if you aren't prepared to live with all possible consequences, including unwanted pregnancy, and to deal with them in a manner that causes no harm to anyone of any age, including the unborn. There will always be a number of women who become pregnant because they are victimized in one or another. These women are not personally responsible for committing the act that created the unwanted pregnancy, and shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences. The unborn baby is also not personally responsible for committing the act that created the unwanted pregnancy, and shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, people are victimized in hundreds of ways every day and must suffer the consequences. If you burn down my home, I must suffer the consequences (and so might you, if you are caught). If shot in a drive -by shooting, I must suffer the consequences. If faced with the unwanted pregnancy of a loved one, regardless of how it was created, I must suffer the consequences. That's just a fact of life, and it's something we should learn to live with and quit expecting a quick fix to solve the problem for us. I suggest adoption be considered as an alternative to abortion.

Though being firmly pro-life, I do not believe that abortion should be such a hot topic in choosing our next President. Our system of government prevents the President from taking any personal action that would either make abortion legal or illegal on his own. He must work with the 535 members of Congress to pass such legislation, and frankly, it's never going to happen. Let's face it, as long as our political system is based upon constantly running for the next election, we're never going to see 536 people agree on such a hot topic as abortion. Granted, the President can nominate his pro-life or pro-choice candidates to the Supreme Court, but they, too, must be confirmed by the 100-member Senate before being seated on the bench. Though possible, it is not likely that we would see an all-liberal or all-conservative Supreme Court. And let's be honest, liberals really don't have much to worry about from a Conservative bench. The Conservatives are historically strict constitutionalists and less likely to legislate from the bench than are liberal justices, and therefore less likely to write a sweeping decision outlawing abortion. So while the topic of abortion is of critical importance when selecting our Senators and Representatives, it's nothing but hot air in the Presidential debate.

Which brings me to the topic of marriage. I believe that marriage was established by God (we only created the ceremony and legal documentation) as the union of one man (originally Adam) and one woman (originally Eve), and that we do not have the authority as God's creation to modify this institution. God's first commandment to the first couple was to "be fruitful and multiply." As that is only possible with the involvement of a man and a woman, I do not feel that there is any need for further debate on this topic. Adam and Eve can be fruitful and multiply, Adam and Steve can only multiple with a pen and paper, or calculator, or some other such instrument that does not result in the continuation of the species.

Again, I do not believe that marriage should be such a hot topic in choosing our next President, and again for the same reasons as I stated earlier on abortion. Should a rogue Judicial Branch decide that same-gender marriage should be legal, we as a nation have the tools at our disposal to rise up and take action. The legislative process provides for us to petition each other for the passing of a law to eliminate the legalization of same-gender marriage. Our 535 representatives -- whom we can choose or unchoose with our votes -- can pass such legislation to overturn any such Supreme Court decision. Utopia, right? Maybe, but I believe that if we focus our efforts on what really matters and what can best be affected by whom, then maybe it isn't so unrealistic to expect such supposedly utopian results. Marriage is not an issue for the President to be overly concerned with, as he has the least impact of all elected officials on the definition of marriage. This, like abortion, should be a major factor in determining how we vote for the Senate and Congress, not the President.

So where does that leave the President? Can he influence education? Clearly President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act is evidence that he can. Can he affect the price of gasoline? Yes, and more easily so if we allow him to tap our own natural resources and not rely so heavily on foreign oil. Can he reduce (or raise) our taxes? Well, if you're an American reading this, you probably received at least one of President Bush's tax rebates or so-called economic stimulus checks over the past eight years.

Most importantly, the President is (or should be) our chief foreign policy expert. No one can be expected to have more knowledge or more expertise of world affairs than the recognized leader of the free world. And while all of the issues I've discussed so far can have an impact on the way we live our lives from day to day, nothing can have a greater impact on life as we know it than living our lives in fear of invasion, attack, or the downfall of our democracy. No single issue is as important to the furtherance of liberty as foreign policy. We must elect a President who is familiar with world affairs, who knows and has worked with world leaders, who has life experience to suggest that he can make strong, sound judgment calls, and who has the courage to stand upon his convictions and the humility to admit when he is wrong and to amend course as needed. If our President cannot be the leader in world affairs, there is nothing he can do domestically to compensate for the damage he might cause.

As I stated at the beginning of this article, I am a Christian Conservative. I registered to vote as a Republican because the Republican platform most consistently aligns with my values and my beliefs. I am not so closed-minded as to believe everything the Republican party says, however. I vote my values, my beliefs, my convictions. When this Presidential campaign cycle began so many months and so many candidates ago, I was a Fred Thompson supporter. When he dropped from the race, after much consideration and study, I fell in behind Rudy Guiliani (who, by the way, does not share my stance on abortion). When John McCain became the last Republican candidate standing, and the only Democrat choices remaining were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I reluctantly threw my support to the candidate who would achieve the greater good on the world front and do the least damage here at home: John McCain (actually, upon researching tonight, I realize that in January 2007, before Guiliani and Thompson were in the race, I had chosen McCain). Now that we are down to two major party candidates (and Bob Barr for the Libertarians), and I have seen those two candidates speak in the unique setting provided at the Saddleback Civil Forum, I no longer stand behind John McCain because he's all that's left. I support him now because I think that going forward, America needs a man like John McCain to preserve all that our founding fathers had in mind some 2000+ years ago.

I share with you now the volley that took place in 140 character snippets on Twitter as I watched the Saddleback forums. The debate was between myself and one petersantilli (his Twitter handle and, presumably, his name). For clarity, I have arranged the "tweets" as a thread, with replies falling in the appropriate place. I have also colored my tweets in Red and his tweets in Blue. Any additional editorializing I've added will appear in black italicized text.

Enjoy.

Watching the Saddleback Civil Forum with Obama and McCain. Wow, this should make the choice clear for anyone! http://is.gd/1Dky

No kidding. The choice is clearly OBAMA!

I don't know what you've been watching to come up with that choice.

Been studying Obama since Dec 2007, didn't change my opinion @ Saddleback

You've been studying, what, nearly his entire career in the Senate then?

Senator Obama has not yet completed his first four-year term in the Senate. Merely pointing out this lack of national experience to petersantilli.

Exactly what people are looking for, less tenure in DC.

In the middle of watching the Saddleback forums, CNN seems to have pulled the video. That's MSM corruption if ever it existed!

MSM conspiracy. Corrupt because they won't let you spin it to your liking

Not looking to spin it in any way. Just looking to watch it, and the video suddenly became unavailable. It's up again now.

But no spin is needed from me. The candidates give it all the spin that it needs.

Got the video going again, but the embed code points to a dead URL. Was going to post it for others to find easily.

Obama's a kind heart. Warm, sincere, thoughtful, and not-so-hot-headed-and-quick-on-the- "AT CONCEPTION"-trigger to get ur Christianity vote

When asked at what point an unborn baby has human rights, Senator McCain replied immediately, "At conception." Senator Obama shuffled and stalled while he came up with the following response: "that's above my pay-grade," suggesting that it is for God to decide. It is, of course, for God to decide, and we must either choose to interpret what God's decision is, or to accept that God's decision is that life begins at conception. Kudos to Senator McCain for having the conviction to take a stance and make a decision on what he believes. It concerns me that a Presidential candidate might be hesitant to make some kind of decision on the topic. This is also the first point at which the Obama supporter engages in attack mode. To suggest that McCain's stance is only given for the purpose of wooing Christian voters, and that Christian voters are so easily swayed into how to vote.

If you knew me at all, you'd know mine is not a "Christianity" vote, just a "Patriotic American" vote.

I'm not a McCain man, so much. But given the current choices, there is no other choice to make.

I don't believe it really matters where POTUS stands on marriage, abortion, etc., regardless what my own views are....

...don't think he can really effect change there. Most importantly is, will he lead us to our downfall....

...by making poor decisions on the world front? Or will he stand up for American principles and democracy?

Meaning: to lead us to the downfall of American society as we have known it for over two centuries by being unable to form a thought, decision, or strategy without first weighing the political ramifications. Like him or not, President Bush has always done what he thought was best, regardless of what the polls might say about him afterward. Senator McCain has had many unpopular positions on the issues, but has always had the courage to stand upon his convictions whether people agree with him or not. I challenge anyone to describe where Senator Obama stands on any issue that is not fully in toe with the party line. When push comes to shove, there may not be time to consider political ramifications before making a decision. Our President has to be able to act swiftly and intelligently, and can only do so based upon experience and upon wanting to do what's right, not just what's right today.

...at whose expense? Standing up for principles & democracies costs $10 billion per month. I really want OURS to be a priority

Establishing our principles and democracy cost our founders their lives. Defend that at any financial cost!

If concerned about our downfall, current trends set by years of GOP war & reck-onomy are not upward towards prosperity

I'm not concerned about financial prosperity. Defending our values has never come cheap, but always been money well spent.

If we allow ourselves to become ruled by money, we are doomed to failure. We cannot fail to achieve our goals because of the price tag. During World War II, the entire country sacrificed for the cause of defeating evil abroad. Food products and petroleum products were rationed. Women went to work in factories while their husbands went to war. Everyone did their part. We once again face a great evil. Regardless of why this war started, or where you think it should be fought, we are at war against an evil force that believes it's God-given purpose is to eliminate us. What have you sacrificed for your country in support of this cause? Why is it that sixty years after World War II we suddenly don't have to sacrifice when our nation is at war?

We'll put all you big spenders on an island off the coast, shoot missiles & yell at Jihaddies. Let us know how that goes

It goes like this: we establish a new great democracy while the one you're so careless about crumbles.

All the money in the world cannot defeat the determination of the passionate defenders of freedom.

Democracy will survive and thrive where liberty is defended. It will fail when we let our guard down and take our sites off the prize.

Well then. Try it out. I think it's worth descovering (sic) if your new island gets attacked, or if we fair better by minding our own

See you in the history books, then. Thanks for the interesting chatter. GOODNIGHT TO ALL.

It is at this point that this debate was over for me. It was midnight here in Indiana, and an early morning ahead. Past experience has taught me that people such as petersantilli will go on forever, sounding less coherent and making less sense, just for the sake of the argument. Read on as he proves my point.

People who say that typically have a sub-prime loan, credit card bills, and let other people balance the war check-book

Shall we blame your stupidity & ignorance on failure of education, Patriot Act, or solely on governmental control of our media?

Again, more attacks and insults. I'll only address the "governmental control of our media" by saying, tune into CNN or MSNBC or CBS or ABC and you'll see that not only does the government not control our media, but if anything the media controls our government. The mainstream media has overlooked so much real news this election cycle in favor of spinning the latest rumor or hearsay in favor of the candidate(s) that they favor that I don't think anyone with a working knowledge of the English language can say that the government controls American media.

A quote for the history books "I'm not concerned about financial prosperity." - Average Joe

It's voters like @AverageJoe that frighten me & my family

Interesting, to say the least. It's sad that some people can't have an informed political debate without resorting to smear tactics, insults, lies, and innuendo. I guess I shouldn't have expected much more given the situation.

Your comments?

Joe

Read more at Redstate.com.


Wednesday, August 13, 2008

RedState.com: An Open Letter to Rick Warren

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RedState.com <Alerts@redstate.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Subject: An Open Letter to Rick Warren

This letter to Pastor Rick Warren is posted at RedState.  In light of the recent reports about Barack Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protect Act (legislation that would require life sustaining medical treatment for infants born alive despite an attempted abortion), the issues Hunter Baker raises in this letter are too important to ignore.

We hope Pastor Warren will ask the tough questions, not just the popular questions.

The text of the letter, written by Redstate Contributor Hunter Baker, is below:

Dear Pastor Warren,

I am writing to you to express concern about something that may get lost when you host the candidate forum with John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback Valley Community Church which is likely to receive national attention. The decision to address you on this question in an open letter comes with some trepidation, but I have attempted to reach you through your media agency, the church email, and your personal email with no effect. I hope this message in a public forum will come to your attention instead of sitting unread in a pile of fan mail and requests for favors.

You see, I understand and appreciate who you are and what you've done. You are one of the most widely known pastors in the nation and have written one of the best-selling non-fiction books of the past several decades. I have many times walked into friends' homes and have seen The Purpose-Driven Life sitting on coffee tables or bookshelves. When Time named you one of the most influential evangelicals in America, I agreed and applauded the selection.

During this period of well-deserved fame, you have been a good steward of the blessings God has provided. You gave away 90% of your massive royalties and repaid your church for years of salary. Instead of following the sometimes frivolous paths of other celebrity pastors, you focused in on the suffering of AIDS victims in Africa. You and your wife Kay have been outstanding role models. You have avoided making intemperate statements. Neither have you become some kind of caricature of the pastor in politics, ready to drop anything for a talking-heads appearance anywhere, anytime.

In your news release about the candidate forum, you suggest that you will avoid "gotcha" questions. The topics highlighted in the release are poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate and human rights with a special emphasis on character and leadership rather than programmatic details.

There is much to be said for rising above partisan politics. After all, the church is on a mission from God to all the earth. It is emphatically not intended to be a tool for either one of the political parties. We are after bigger game than a balanced budget, the right kind of welfare state, or term limits. We seek redemption for a world we believe has lost its way.

However, there are certain issues that demand the church's involvement, issues of basic justice, issues of life and death. Perhaps the least ambiguous of those issues is the protection of babies throughout pregnancy and immediately after birth. We live in a culture that, strangely, acts as though unborn children are like genies that can be stuffed back into the bottle. We know that isn't true. We know that abortions end with little piles of bloody flesh and bone. Fetuses don't merely cease to exist. They experience violent physical death.

There are many doctrinal issues that divide Christians, but the protection of young life should not be one of them. Pastor Warren, as Protestants, we are part of a tradition that loves to point to the early church -- the young church so pure in our estimation -- still uncorrupted by the power of empire. That church, that persecuted church, was a tireless defender of life. Early Christians counseled against abortion and actively rescued infants exposed to the predators and the wild by Roman parents who vested few rights in human beings shortly after birth. A child of the wrong sex or one who looked weak could be abandoned. How strange it is that today a candidate claiming to be a Christian could oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act or a ban on partial birth abortion! To do so is to disclaim not only a major part of Christian teaching, but also a cultural advance in favor of protecting the weak and innocent.

Pastor, you know both John McCain and Barack Obama. You know where they stand on the protection of innocent human life. While it is a fine thing to allow both men to expound upon their experience, their leadership ability, and their attitudes toward challenges of the future like AIDS or climate change, I submit that you would do a disservice to your congregation and to the church at large if you host both candidates and ignore the issue that divides them more clearly than almost any other. Barack Obama has indicated a willingness to change his position on a number of issues, including drilling for oil, the way the Iraq war is conducted, and the proper understanding of gun ownership rights. But his position with regard to abortion rights is positively adamantine. Abortion on demand is non-negotiable. McCain, on the other hand, has consistently voted against a broad abortion license.

Some would respond to me, though I doubt you would, that I am emphasizing one issue unfairly. My answer is that this issue is basic. If the year were 1958, instead of 2008, do you think it would be right to host such a forum and ignore segregation, knowing one candidate was ardently in favor of the separation of the races? You and I both know that it would be wrong to gloss over a glaring breach of that kind. We both know many in the church were wrong in just that way. (It is a terrible irony of history that Mr. Obama now stands with those who favor the persistent removal of an entire class of human beings from legal protection through legal fiat. How I wish it were not so.)

My hope is that you will make no promise to leave the foundational issue of the sanctity of life untouched in this forum. If the lack of that promise means the forum may not take place, then I suggest it would be better to cancel it.

With respect,

Hunter Baker

 

RedState.com | One Massachusetts Ave., NW | Washington, DC 20001


Average Joe's Review Store