Wednesday, October 31, 2012

What if you're wrong?

I've heard plenty of voters say that the nation will be better (or okay) if Candidate A wins or if Candidate B loses -- but they haven't a clue what really makes the nation better (or okay).

Many voters say that there isn't that much difference between the candidates (as far as their superficial or slanted evaluation shows) or they're all corrupt anyway, so it doesn't really matter which one they choose.

I hear people say that it's only 2 or 4 or 6 years so it's no big deal if the vote for a candidate because of the candidate's skin color or political party affiliation.

Some voters people vote for the incumbent because experience or seniority are very important characteristics.

I hear people say that having a corrupt, dangerous or incompetent person in office isn't a big deal if he's okay on their favorite issue -- that's why we have checks and balances.

There are those whose choice is based on one or more emotions: fear, excitement, infatuation, selfishness, hate, etc.

I know people who justify lazy voting (ie don't thoroughly study the candidates and issues because God has predicted the end of days and we are there; so, since this is the end, why interfere with the inevitable or why bother?

Some voters only pray about how to vote, expecting God to reveal His will to ignorant and lazy people. They actually believe they get answers!

Many people plan to vote third-party because "voting principles" for a candidate that is guaranteed to lose is more noble than "voting for the lesser of two evils" who has a solid chance of beating the greater of two evils.

My response to all such voters:

What if you are wrong?

Regarding "checks and balances": Is it really wise to expect the government to check itself? Remember, the most essential check on government is a wise and informed voter -- not another government official or branch!

I believe that God will hold us accountable for how we vote by asking, "I gave you the freest nation in history; what did you do to preserve it?" Natural consequences also will always hold us and our posterity accountable for unwise voting.

Regarding any of the above voter attitudes, ask yourself one little question: What if you are wrong? What can be the consequences?

Liberty cannot tolerate voters who are wrong. Ever. You may not recognize it in its infancy, but tyranny always relies on those who are wrong.

If you're going to vote, get well educated on the principles of liberty, the character and agenda of the candidates, and any issues that are on the ballot. Then vote wisely and prayerfully. Be sure you are not wrong. If you're unwilling to do your homework before voting, you are being unfair to those of us who do.

It is extremely unfortunate that the election is rigged against third-party candidates. It is extremely unfortunate that the so-called "news" media enforces those unfair rules. It is extremely unfortunate that we even have political parties -- many of the nation's founders opposed them and they unnecessarily foment discord.

Nevertheless, those are the rules of today's politics. Face it, no matter how noble you think your protest vote is, your candidate will not win. If your favorite candidate were viable, he or she would have won the nomination in one of the two major parties and the subsequent convention. And, nobody is paying any attention whatsoever to your protest except for how it will harm the rest of us.

Deep down, you likely know that the refusal to vote for the "lesser of two evils" is a farce. Even your candidate is hardly perfect. And, even he or she would probably be the "lesser of two evils" in the view of a substantial portion of the voters. (Maybe that's why your candidate didn't win the nomination, eh?)

If the viable candidate that comes closest to your principles loses because you and people like you voted for somebody guaranteed to lose, you know whom to blame.

You have two choices: Play games or vote for the viable candidate that comes closest to your principles. Personally, I don't think voting is a proper time to play games.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. — Ronald Reagan (Address to the annual meeting of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, 30 Mar 1961)

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. — Ronald Reagan (California Gubernatorial Inauguration Speech 5 Jan 1967)

Freedom is not a self-preserving gift. It has to be earned, and it has to be protected. — Boyd K. Packer (Speeches of the Year, Provo: Brigham Young University, 1971, p 1-7)

Freedom is not only a gift, but a summons to personal responsibility. — Pope Benedict XVI, Apr 2008

We need smarter voters.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Campaign advice for Mitt Romney

Like many Christians, Conservatives, and Constitutionalists (CCC), I am troubled by your past on issues such as gun rights, homosexual marriage, and abortion.

Like most CCCs, I believe in repentance. I am therefore encouraged by your stated conversion on those issues. I am also encouraged by the schooling in the Constitution you received while debating Dr. Ron Paul.

However, I am still troubled by hints of your liberal past. I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who said that you are "not Mormon enough." He went on to say, “"If his stance on life and his stance on marriage had been consistently what the stance of the Mormon church has been, he would have far less doubts among social conservatives." For example:

• You recently stated that you think the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) should accept homosexuals. I remind you that the US Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech. The BSA has a Constitutionally-protected right to define its own standards for conduct of its members. As an LDS leader, you should know that the LDS Church adopted the BSA program because, when used as intended, it is a valuable tool in achieving Church goals of preparing its young men for the Melchizedek Priesthood, missions, temple marriage, fatherhood, and leadership in the Church and in the community. I agree that homosexuals have a Constitutionally-protected right to form their own associations, including as couples. But, homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have no right to impose their will on any other group nor to expect that anyone else redefine time-proven societal structures or relationships. We CCCs expect you to leave the BSA, the churches, and other non-federal-government entities alone and to tell us that you will do so as president!

• In the past, you have openly supported homosexual marriage. New research has confirmed what a lot of us already new – homosexuality is not only harmful to the spiritual welfare of mankind and contrary to the laws of God, homosexual parenting has been shown to be harmful to children. In fact, the study shows that homosexual marriage is more damaging to children than are broken marriages! Again, I agree that homosexuals have a Constitutionally-protected right to form their own associations, including as couples. But, we CCCs need to know that you understand and agree that healthy heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society and is the best environment in which to raise children and that you will see that it is protected and encouraged.

• Instead of rolling back gun regulation in order to bring gun laws into compliance with the Constitution, you merely say that you don’t support new gun regulation. I remind you that the Second Amendment clearly directs that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What is it about "shall not be infringed" that judges and politicians like you don’t understand? We CCCs expect you, as president, to order an audit of all federal firearm laws, rules, and policies (all non-firearm-related federal laws as well) to identify and correct/rescind all laws that are not in full compliance with the Supreme law of the Land – the Constitution.

• You indicate that you would have signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) with its anti-Constitution provisions to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or warrant. I urge you to carefully study the Fourth Amendment which clearly demands that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I hope that you understand that you will never get the Liberal vote. But, you desperately need the CCC vote to win the 2012 presidential election. Senator McCain lost the 2008 election largely because he didn't reach out to the CCCs -- in spite of Governor Palin's efforts. Instead, he campaigned to the Moderates. I urge you to not make the same mistake. Sure, you need votes of Moderates, but failing to calm the concerns of us CCCs is what will cause you to lose the election. There are millions of us, and a lot of us will vote third-party if you don't calm our fear that you won't love and adhere to the Constitution and to God's teachings as much as we do.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Big Bird vs Mitt Romney

As indicated in the above cartoon, at $445 million a year, Big Bird is a drop in the federal-spending bucket. But, it's a symptom of the problem. Contrary to what the cartoonist implies, Romney never said that removing unconstitutional funding of PBS/NPR would balance the budget.

Romney's point is that the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8 and a handful of other clauses) identifies specific limited things the federal government is required and authorized to do. The Tenth Amendment clearly limits the federal government to the roles specified in the Constitution. Subsidizing a TV/radio network that competes against private enterprise is not on the list of things any government should be doing.

Unfortunately, Romney isn't going far enough. He, like 99% of our politicians, doesn't seem willing to attack every other federal program that violates the limits the Constitution places on politicians' thirst for building federal power by liberally spending taxpayer money.

Spending is so out-of-control that nearly 40% of federal spending is done with borrowed money! If all unconstitutional federal spending were eliminated (including Big Bird), we wouldn't have a $16 trillion national debt or a $1.1 trillion budget deficit for 2012. And, you'd never have to pay a federal income tax again. That's how big the problem is.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. — Thomas Jefferson

The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 9 Mar 1821

The primary reason for government growth (and the "incumbent advantage") is that we've yet to convince people to refuse to be bribed with their own money. — Boyd K.

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. — Frederic Bastiat

We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs and to make sure the government is living within its means and making responsible choices....We don't need more studies. We don't need a balanced budget amendment. We simply need to make these tough choices. — Barrack Obama

Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne

We need smarter voters.