Colbert Needs to Pledge

Republicans made a good move in coming out with something of substance this week in their Pledge to America. Many people are wondering if the Republican leadership may have had their fingers crossed behind their backs.

To tell you the truth. I don't know. We have seen this before. Anyone remember 1994? But we do need to remember many of the people on the press conference were not there in 1994. If they were, they should have been Term Limited long ago. But that is another column.

I think we need to give the current leadership a break and see what happens. One thing that does concern me though, was the members of the press conference. I didn't see Steve King, Michele Bachmann, Duncan Hunter Jr, John Culbertson, Louie Gomert, etc. People I totally trust about their values. I do like Mike Pence. I do believe he is solid on his values. But I would also say he was the only one, that I could give that status too.

It is almost like he was a token appointment to the house leadership team. Some one that the base really trusts, that the elites think can keep the rabble of the party under control and on the team.

Yes, I like the pledge, I liked the Contract in 1994 also. So Republican leadership, please keep both hands in front of you for now on.

Stephen Colbert is a leader on public opinion? Give me a break. Colbert, I think you need to take a pledge, and pledge to never go to Washington again and waste the Tax Payer's employees time, and our money. Your defense of the status quo for our illegal immigration problem, by making fun of those who want a change, was despicable. How do I know this? CNN thought you were funny. That is proof enough.

Maybe they don't have an immigration problem in Beverly Hills. But you insulted the Patriots that want to defend and preserve this country, by calling them racists who don't want to do manual labor. You are the joke. Go back to back to your Comedy Channel, and the fantasy that is your life.

The Debate on Entanglements

America's Foreign Policy, although not on the fore front in the minds of American's this election season. Is a splitting point on getting things accomplished this year, and has been for a long time.

Liberty minded people believe as do I, that war must be declared by Congress. But the debate goes on as to whether America's Foreign Policy since World War II has been Constitutional or not.

In the strictest sense of the form it isn't. But if we look at the non interventionist policies that led to World War II. It is understandable a change in that policy was necessary. Lives could have been saved if America had been concerned with developments in Germany before the war broke out.

History has proved many people were aware of the Anti-semitic policies of the Third Reich around the World yet the World, and specifically America did not intervene.

The break down of the American system of Government currently in process. Took a turn towards restoration this week. Liberty minded people can take heart that they prevailed this week, and are in the process of putting our government back to it's founding heritage.

This has been delayed by the divide among Liberty minded people, over Foreign Policy, and is sure to raise it's head again after Nov 3rd. Something the current coalition that is Taking Back Our Country cannot afford.

Both sides of the issue have compromised, in order to get candidates elected that will respect the rule of law this nation was founded on. This is sure to go away on Nov 3rd.

In advance let me state my position to my fellow Liberty minded friends, who think differently than I do. The founding fathers really had no problem in America getting involved in foreign affairs.

Many people who do not agree with me, say George Washington said to not get involved in Foreign entanglements. I have done some research on this, and believe that is not correct.

Lets look at Washington's profile in the National Archives. Towards the end of the profile this passage reveals Washington's Foreign Policy agenda. It also reveals that he has been taken out of context on the entanglements statement

( In foreign affairs, despite opposition from the Senate, Washington exerted dominance. He fostered United States interests on the North American continent by treaties with Britain and Spain. Yet, until the nation was stronger, he insisted on the maintenance of neutrality. For example, when the French Revolution created war between France and Britain, he ignored the remonstrances of pro-French Jefferson and pro-English Hamilton.

Although many people encouraged Washington to seek a third term, he was weary of politics and refused to do so. In his "Farewell Address" (1796), he urged his countrymen to forswear party spirit and sectional differences and to avoid entanglement in the wars and domestic policies of other nations.)

In this passage we see that Washington did not want involvement in Foreign Affairs. Because he felt America was not strong enough to be involved on the World Stage. America was too young and under developed Militarily to get involved. Notice he also warned against party loyalty, and fighting between states. His foreign policy warning was in the context of America not being strong enough. It had nothing to do with the morality or immorality of Foreign involvement.

I truly believe since Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that wrote our Constitution. He would have said at that time, that America did have a right to intervene in foreign countries for moral purposes. But was not strong enough to do so.

How is it America can intervene for the morality of it? It is that passage in the Constitution that all men are created equal, and are born with unalienable rights. It didn't say anything about Americans only, or countries with a King or Queen. Even in an aristocracy God is involved. We happen to believe that the power comes to us from God. Aristocracies believe the power comes from God to a King or Queen, or potentate.

The thought crosses my mind. Was there such a thing as Communism back then? I don't believe there was. Either that or the Founding Fathers were not aware of it. Communism of course has no God involved at all. So I believe the founding fathers would have said it is alright, to ensure that all of the people of the Earth, have the unalienable rights handed down to us from God,and communicated to us through the Bible. I believe they would have taken the moral authority to liberate those who are oppressed by a system where God is not involved. Notice Hamilton, and Jefferson wanted to do just that. But Washington knew America was not strong enough to carry out that mission.

For the Liberty agenda to continue past Nov 2, those in the Liberty movement will need to reject the rhetoric of Ron Paul, and accept the rhetoric of Rand Paul on Foreign Policy. Let's face it. You can't prove to me that our Foreign Policy is evil and an attempt at War Profiteering. I also cannot prove to you that it isn't.

One thing is for sure. I have history on my side. The intent of the founding fathers is clear in the passage shown. You need to come up with something more concrete than taking Washington out of context.

Until you do. All you are doing is driving potential allies out of our movement who think like I do. I haven't lost a child from the execution of America's Foreign Policy. They have, and they do not need to compromise. They have earned the right not to.

Change is Coming?

Last nights election results was a victory for common sense traditional American Conservatives. Is change on the way? Maybe nationwide. But in Iowa?

On the same night the establishment took a huge hit nationally, an ugly display of the Iowa Political establishment in the form of the Governor's Debate took place. At least that is what I am taking from a Des Moines Register report, that I do not doubt for one minute is accurate. It is.

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/09/14/gov-debate-a-brain-suck-might-be-more-fun/

I must admit. I did not see the debate. I spent the debate time in a meeting, for my local statehouse candidate, who still believes in service to his community. I suspect I was not alone across the state.

The Governors race, and the nominees both parties have produced, reflects a disconnect with the general public, and further endangerment of Iowa losing its first in the nation Presidential status. After all how can we expect cutting edge Conservative Presidential Candidates to come here if the Iowa Republican electorate isn't reflective of the change that is obviously echoing across the nation?

Americans are interested in solutions to the problems facing our society. Our children's inheritance is being mortgaged, in the name of temporary job creation, that no one can even begin to buy a house with. We are seeing a decline in basic government services, despite paying more in taxes for them. This big, bloated, ineffective government, the establishment of both parties has produced is, also circumventing our unalienable rights, and under mining the corner stone of our society, the American Family.

After last night change is coming. But what of Iowa? Is this the best we can do for the public debate of our Governors race? Have we allowed our political system to become a reality TV show? We are in need of ideas not the scripted rhetoric of Professional Wrestling.

There are two more debates yet. There is still time to have an open conversation about the issues facing our state. Jonathan Narcisse should be allowed in the debates.

The fact that the debate seemed to turn in to a family squabble between two siblings, gives legs to the criticism many are making that the two parties are in bed with each other.

Iowa needs to wake up. Change is coming. Let Narcisse in the debates. Let freedom ring.

Culture War Lost?

Bill OReilly talks all of the time of the Culture War going on in America today. The moral compass OReilly and many Americans grew up with seems to be spinning out of control. There seems to be no direction, other than the change that Obama has promised the American people.

Furthering this agenda is the trend that the Republicans are heading for a big win this November. Its 1994 all over again. It sure is.

After two years of Bill Clinton. The American people were ready to slow him down. He was implementing change too quickly, and endangering Americas Cultural Heritage as a moral country. Anyone but a Clinton crony. The Contract for America laid out good ideas to solve problems America was facing. Candidates who signed onto it got elected in droves. We asked ourselves. Did that candidate believe in the Defense of the unborn? Well, maybe he is a little soft on that. But we need change, we need that Democrat out. Did the Republican I am voting for give me a clear statement on his position of what marriage should be? Well he is a little soft on that but we need change.

In the race for Iowas Governors Office, Iowans have been given the choice of two incumbents. One with four incompetent years of service, the other with sixteen years of relatively competent service, FISCALLY.

This is leaving Social Conservatives out in the cold. Past compromises Gov Branstad has made on cultural issues, has made him an unacceptable alternative, to the other candidate who may not even have the integrity that Gov Branstad has. Make no mistake, I have no trouble with Gov Branstad personally. I think he is a good person, with personal convictions that are Socially Traditional, but he has set them aside in order to Govern. This is a result of being in office too long. This is a compelling reason for term limits. Public service is supposed to be service not a career.

The tactic for Social Conservatives in Iowa this fall, is to get as many Social Conservatives elected as possible down ballot, to off set the Social Moderate gains the Republican establishment will make, because the money that got their Democrat opponent in office, realize that they need to play the other side of the aisle this cycle.

This maybe a major set back in the Culture War. Although the battle at the top of the ticket seems lost, they believe they can still keep the cause alive through down ballot victories. Social Conservatives need to get into the Governors race immediately.

I was listening to Rush yesterday, and he was talking about New York's 1st Congressional District, where a solidly conservative candidate he supports was given a primary opponent, by the Washington establishment. WHAT? The Republican establishment is confronting the leader of the Revolution of 1994? YES It has changed that fast. The Republican establishment is no longer lead by people who want Ronald Reagan, or Barry Goldwater conservatives in it. They are now part of a ruling class that believes themselves above American cultural tradition. Here in Iowa the confidence of a victory for the ruling class, is starting to show in the grass roots.

Already there have been instances of candidates who are Republican nominees for down ballot races being slighted by the Branstad establishment. They are either being dis invited to fund raisers. Or showing up at events and not being introduced when they were introduced the last time the event was held. They are basically being ignored if they come down too hard on those divisive social issues, that have been a cornerstone of America Culture.

To Iowa's Social Conservatives. The strategy of getting socially conservative candidates in down ballot is not going to work. You are not going to get enough of them in to have any effect on the power play that is State Government. The power is in the Governors office. There is a candidate I have found has the World View we are looking for to defend traditional American Culture. He is Jonathan Narcisse. If we can rally behind him. It is possible a victory can still be had for us. If not at least we can get close enough to make Branstad consider our way of thinking. The Branstad campaign has made an attempt to reach out to us because they know they need us. We all know once the election is over it will be the same thing again. They will not need us til the next election.

So please get on board to help Jonahtan Narcisse. He is the one candidate in the Governors race who is carrying our banner. Branstad is going to be the winner in a Culver, Branstad race. If Branstad wins big he will grab the mandate of that big win, and run rough shod over any candidate you get in down ballot. Life will be very rough for them up on the hill in Des Moines. So much so they may not run for reelection.

The front line of the culture war is Iowa. You have less than 60 days to keep that fight alive. If the election is held right now. The culture war is over, and the change Obama promised is on its way, with no chance to stop it.

The Girls Know When It Is Over First

After a hectic week of moving into a different house. I got a chance to catch up on my pod casting. For years I have labored in the Grass Roots for the Republican Party. I carried the party banner, and took jobs the party establishment would't do anymore. This last primary season has made me realize I am a Rino. I am a Registered Republican, but the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan I believe in doesn't exist anymore.

The person who made me realize this was Jen Green. Like my self she had been in the Grass Roots for allot of years, and Ken Mehlman coming out of the closet was the last straw. Mehlman the former Chair for the Bush campaign, and long time Republican operative, admitted he was gay and was working against the social conservatives in the Republican Party to stop their agenda. This was enough for Jen. She was out of this relationship. She was issuing a restraining order by changing her voter registration.

She is right, many of us for years have looked at the party platform, and voted for the Republican nominee, even though that nominee didn't seem to believe in our platform. I am still, at this moment wondering if I should change my registration. There are Republican candidates on the ballot that do believe in the platform, that I want to vote for, and support. They are not Republican establishment though. Just like the guy in a broken relationship, who wants to keep trying even though it hasn't been good for a long time. I feel a need to try again. She has forgiven him when he has been in the wrong, and he has shown his appreciation for that, by continuing the behavior she has forgiven him for. She has finally given up on him and he can't understand why. :)He just knows if we try one more time, it will all be fine. He keeps coming around and she has to get a restraining order.

Listening to Vicki Stogdill on The Deace Show podcast, is another example of the girls know it is over first. Having been a long time activist, and married to a man who owned a long established small business, she for years thought the Republican Party, she was in support of, had the values she had. It was socially conservative, and a defender of small Main Street businesses. She had never seen many of the corporate donations both parties were collecting, from corporations that were actually in favor of sending jobs overseas, and shutting down main street, and move those businesses to the Mall. She is running for the Statehouse as an Independent. She is not going to keep taking the abuse anymore.

I remember the first time I was wondering if the Republican Party was an adversary of the Democratic Party, or a partner in a WWF sanctioned wrestling match where the winner was predetermined. At the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis we were at a breakfast sponsored by an Indian Casino Group from the Southwestern United States. Our host the President of the Group, admitted he had been in Denver the week before, and hosted a breakfast for the Democrats. I should have caught on then. But hey I am a guy. We aren't quitters.

So thanks Jen and Vicki for being the strong women the feminist movement wants women to be. But always condemn if they aren't Democrats. To you guys out there waiting for the restraining order. I leave you with the words of that great philosopher Groucho Marx.

Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him.
Groucho Marx