Who Should We Vote For?

I am posting this in response to Steve Deace's blog on Monday. You can see it here.

http://www.whoradio.com/pages/stevedeace.html?page=2

When trying to decide who to vote for. I try to apply these five principles, in accessing the candidates qualifications.

Our Principles:

1. The Natural Law handed down to man from God, communicated to us through the Bible is the ultimate Law of the Land. Natural law supersedes all Laws written by man.

2. Life is precious and should be protected.

3. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and is a tradition that must be preserved.

4. We believe in the limited Government the Founders envisioned for this Nation, expressed in the Constitution.

5. We believe that all people are endowed by God with unalienable rights, and America should continue it's tradition of Defending Those Rights by Peace Through Strength

So applying these to the hypothetical candidates Steve has listed in his blog. Let's see who to vote for.

Candidate A:

Candidate A seems to pass number one until we find out he considers Health Care a right. Hardly a mandate handed down by God. On number two he fails because of he is Pro Life in name only. Number 3? FAILED BIG TIME. Number 4 failed: His public record shows no basis what so ever of belief in original intent. Number 5 Failed : Just because he is a war veteran, doesn't mean he is into Defending his fellow man. His positions on the other issues leads me to believe I can't trust him on Defense. Anyone hear of John Kerry? Actually I think I will call candidate number one John Kerry. Thumbs down on this guy!!

Candidate B:

Since Steve has made all three candidates male. I am making the Atheist Libertarian a woman, who doesn't go to Ron Paul events, but rather is beloved by Conservative Women's groups. This candidate passes number one because she is really a closet Christian who believes in original intent, but loves the pot lucks that the Conservative Women Groups put on, and doesn't want to be kicked out of them. I giver her a thumbs up on number 1. Number 2and Three: She passes, she is solid on life and marriage. I cut her some slack for not wanting to make waves, and have her sisters in the movement question her womanhood. Now you say she maybe a little weak on marriage and Pro Life. But she does have a previous voting record I can rely on. ( I can count on her to do the right thing). Numbers 4 and 5 are easy. She has shown all along a believe in limited Government. Since Defense has not come up in her past. I have to give her the benefit of the doubt. Gee I guess we can see why it is the year of the woman. :) If this candidate were a man he would fail miserably for having no ca hones. But since she is a woman and naturally has no ca hones I can live with her.

Candidate C:

FAILED ON EVERYTHING. Don't be confused he doesn't fail number one because he is a Divorce e. Reagan was a divorce e. So Evangelicals when a candidate with a Divorce in their past pops up. Don't fall for it. The liberals are playing you and you fall for it every time. It turns you off to great candidates and helps liberals get elected even though they have a divorce also. Why? You weren't going to vote for the Liberal either so you stay home and the Liberal wins. It is a turn out trick. The main thing is if a candidate can pass my five criteria it is really about who they are now. Not who they were then. Adultery on the candidates part does compel you to stay home. I do fall for that one every time. No adultery? Cut them some slack.

Well that is my take on our political, no win scenario. Just like Kirk. I changed the test so I get some one to vote for. Have no doubt. Even though I vote for Candidate B. I realize I am still not voting for a die hard Conservative. It is very hard to find a Conservative with the steadfastness of a Reagan. Being realistic and not cheating on this test. Taking the candidates as they are, and they being the only choices on the BALLOT. I leave that race blank and look at other races on the ballot. This store didn't have what I was looking for. I need to go to the next store down the street.

Culver Not That Bad!!

Now before you report me to the Branstad Campaign take a moment to hear me out. You have to admit that title caught your attention. :)But in this case it Culver is saying he isn't doing a bad job.

Data released this week shows that Iowa is in second place in the nation in debt per capita. Iowa is only in debt for every man woman and child in the state for $73 each. Only Nebraska is ahead of us at $15.

This of course might leave Culver to claim he is doing a good job, and I have heard some pressers on the radio saying something about his tight fiscal policies. But really what he is saying is come on, I haven't been that bad. Look at the others.

Here is where we go wrong. We accept his premise. His opponent responds by saying there aren't any IJOBS spending in those results. Well there wasn't any IJOBS spending in the other states figures either.

The response to Culver, and what Culver should be saying is that the goal should be $0 per capita. Culver should admit he failed and Branstad should call him a failure. Anybody reading this remember asking the State of Iowa, or the Federal Government for that matter to put each of us in Debt? To further complicate it both the state and federal Government have put our children, who really don't have any voice in the process, into debt. Hey isn't it fraud if some one charges something to your credit card you didn't approve?

The Oligarchy that is currently running America would say we did approve it. We voted for the policies and programs that have incurred this debt. They would say you voted for us to make those decisions for you, and because it is such a big responsibility, we must spend a million dollars to go to Spain, and other places where the rest of the World's oligarchs play. I can't argue with this. Anybody running for office on a pay as you go platform doesn't get elected. Why? We don't hold our Government to the same standards we require in the world of sports.

Imagine the manager of your favorite baseball team sitting down with his owner. The owners says,Joe I have to fire you. The manager says but look at my record. I have been your manager for the last three years and I am only 73 games under .500? He further says that he is in second place in the league for managers with three years experience or higher. First place is only 15 games under .500. So if I am a oligarch. I have to make sure no managers serve more than three years because all managers with under three years service are the only ones with winning records. Either that or we are in a league where no one has a winning record. It would also explain why politicians like Golf. It is the only sport where a negative result is good. That is how we allow our Government to work.

We need to apply our standards in sports to our elected Officials. I am not calling for Government surplus either. Look at what happened to the $900 million surplus that was there when Branstad left office? It got spent.

Our approach to Government should be that we are in one of the major golf tournaments where the winner ends up at even par. Only then can we be assured that our tax dollars are at the right percentage of our incomes, and we will preserve the freedom our founding fathers envisioned for future generations.

Ron Paul Endorse Social Moderate John Dennis!!

Adding to a bizarre turn of public policy initiatives. Socially Conservative Ron Paul has endorsed Social Moderate John Dennis of California for Congress. Dennis is running against Nancy Pelosi. What is wrong with that you ask? On John Dennis site, http://www.johndennis2010.com/issues/ there is no mention of Abortion. When his staff was asked about this they said that Mr Dennis believes this is a States Rights Issue. The usual moderate response when one does not want to take a stance on abortion or gay marriage.

Investigating further we find Mr Dennis is endorsed by Rogueon.org http://rogueon.org/ Rogueon.org is the same group that endorsed Moderately Pro Abortion Scott Brown (or so Scott says he is Pro Life I can't tell) Rogueon has the following on their website about Social Issues: RogueOn.org advocates for common sense restoration of America with a Federalist approach to Constitutional Liberty and a States Rights approach to social issues.

The question must be asked is Ron Paul, who I believe him when he says he is Pro Life aware there are Socially Moderate people in Campaign for Liberty? Or is he looking the other way? Why did Students for Liberty applaud having GOPRIDE, an openly gay Republican group, show up at CPAC last week? What is Rogueon Rogue about? Very interesting questions. Is this the admission of a problem Republican's need to make, before they can regain credibility with the rest of America? If I am a Father or Mother of Military Service Personnel, do I want to be part of a Republican Party that includes Campaign for Liberty, and Ron Paul who often goes too far in their criticism of my kids? The answer to these questions I believe will be the redemption of the Republican Party, and the healing it needs, to become credible to America again.

Joe Stack Was A Quitter!!

If you are a fan of the old TV Show Kung Fu you will remember the episode where Grasshopper was sitting by a Monkey with his hand caught in a vase. Master Po came by and said "What have we here?" Grasshopper said "This monkey seems to have his hand stuck in this vase and can't get it out, although his wrist seems way to small for the opening." The Master said "Try pulling his hand out." Grasshopper did and indeed it came out. Master Po picked up the vase turned it over and an apple rolled out. Grasshopper said "That's what he was after. The apple and his hand was too big to come out of the vase opening at the same time. That stubborn Monkey has been sitting here all day trying to take the apple out, when all he had to do was turn the vase over." Master Po said " See to it you remain smarter than this Monkey and know when to let go of things that no longer serve you"

Joe Stack's insane reaction to his financial misfortune only goes to illustrate what a quitter he was. If he truly understood America, he would have understood that he could always try again. But he quit on himself, and the broken American system he decided wasn't founded on the Liberty he proclaims to believe in. How this furthered his Micheal Moore, Campaign for Liberty Worldview, by becoming a martyr for those causes is hard to see.

What I believe is missing in the analysis is what can happen when you are a Fiscal Conservative only. Think of it Joe Stack lost his house and fortune, and felt he had nothing left to live for, despite having claimed bankruptcy three times before. Being Fiscally Conservative didn't do him any good here, in fact it probably led to his demise.

How can I say Joe Stack wasn't Socially Conservative? Well Joe told God that Joe's time was up. If he had any Value for Life at all, he would have understood that God tells us when our time is up. Suicide is more than a call for help as the analysts would have you believe. It is a rejection of God's plan for us. There was a reason Joe lost everything, he quit and refused to let God show him. Having been a person who turned a house in before that I could not afford, I have a perspective on it. God was telling me to let go of something that no longer served me. Losing my house actually was a very freeing moment for me. It freed my life up to pursue other things than enslaving myself to a mortgage I could never pay off.

America needs to learn this lesson, every time we raise the debt ceiling, we are enslaving ourselves and future generations to a debt that we all know cannot be paid off. Now how the recognition of Fiscal Conservative policy doesn't run hand and hand with the Social Conservative policy, of a God given Right to Life, and a time tested cultural belief that Marriage is between a man and a woman is hard to see.

Just like losing a house I have in the past voted for candidates who: 1. Were a little weak on Pro Life, and 2. would not tell me they are for Traditional Marriage. But I told myself anyone would be better than what is in there now. Then I sat back and watched them vote in the economic policies that has led to the economy we currently live in, and quite possibly the demise of a way of life that existed for over 200 years.

America has learned to an extent to let go of something that no longer serves them. They are leaving the Republican and Democratic Parties in droves. The question is will they be smart enough to turn the vase over, and not let Fiscal only Conservatives, or certain Libertarians who are not founded in God's Worldview fool them into thinking they are voting for change?

GROSS GUARANTEES CULVER'S REELECTION !!!

Doug Gross in his insistent campaign to drive social conservatives out of the Republican Party, practically guaranteed Chet Culver's reelection this week. With President Obamas total incompetence and Chet Culver's lilly livered refusal to defend the sanctity of the average Iowans home, Republicans were gaining ground and looking forward to big victories next year , until this week.

With Grosses coalition hiring a Texas polling firm, and the subsequent release of results, that were accumulated before the Iowa Supreme Courts ruling on Gay Marriage. The social moderates totally destroyed, and undermined the efforts of the new leadership at RPI, to repair the damage caused by the Iowa Caucus last year.

Thanks again social moderates, by backing social conservatives into a corner with your phony poll, the big tent has now collapsed, you pulled the tent stake out!!

Answer this for me Doug, why cant a Republican be a fiscal and social conservative? I believe Reagan was. Oh yes I am not supposed to bring that guy up. After all the people who truly believed in him, were the very same people your bunch didn't want in the party years ago. You just humored them to win elections, and now you want them out no matter what the cost.

There is a party where social liberals, and fiscal conservatives can go, and are going, its called the Democratic Party!! Don't forget many fiscal conservatives believe in balancing the governments books, not necessarily cutting government spending.

On the weekend of Jack Kemp's death, I am reminded of the conservatism that I believe in. Jacks idea of the big tent, is not what the Republican Party is pursuing today. Jack believed in a hand up, not a hand out. He believed that a strong family unit was the key to a strong community, that is why he always wanted us to help the minority community, because liberals had destroyed the family in that community, and Jack knew social conservative values was the key to recovery, for that segment of our society.

Kemp also believed in economic development , not economic bailout. The Republican Party is not the Party of economic development anymore, we spend our time getting sweetheart business deals for the multi national corporations that give us the largest donations, small donors don't count anymore. When Haley Barbour was RNC chair, I.E. Reagan he had the largest list of donors under $100 a year in the history of the party then, and since.

So where do you want us to go Doug? I don't see any victories for you to hang your hat on, that confirms a fiscal conservative, social moderate can win. Obama is really nothing more than McCain on steroids, and he was perceived as a new face, and hadn't been in Washington long enough to get blamed for all of the problems. THAT'S HOW HE WON!! THAT'S IT!! ITS AS SIMPLE AS THAT!!

What has won in the past for the Republican Party is a platform of Smaller Government, Less Taxes, and Personal Responsibility, at least that is what John Ensign said today.

Lets see what goes under Personal Responsibility: Oh yeah Not Aborting Your Baby, Trying to make a marriage work, ( one between a man and a woman) say what does the Hill group poll show about that? Seeing to it that the next generation has a chance to live at least as good as the present one, (hard to see how the bailouts have done that), See to it that the current generation lives in a safe and secure, and prosperous country ( illegal immigration has really helped toward that goal).

Just those three issues alone point to a Party that needs to bring social conservative values to the table and defend them, the lack of commitment to that has been our undoing.

So the lines have been split once again, Social Moderates the money changers of the Party, are trying to defeat the Social Conservatives, who have the numbers that make election victory possible. A situation that lead to defeat in the past.

So all I can say to Doug Gross, is if you persist in this manner, of wanting to exclude social conservatives from the mix, you are guaranteeing Chet Culver's reelection. It is up to you, I have yet to see candidates out there, who run only on social issues. The ones I like run as a social and fiscal conservative, and back that up when they hold office. The fact that you don't see any candidates out there who do, exposes your lack of understanding of politics in general, and average conservative Americans in particular.

Once again take good look at what you are saying, because you are guaranteeing Culver's reelection!!

THANKS SOCIAL MODERATES!!

Social moderates are dancing in the streets today, now that same sex marriage has been made legal in Iowa. Moderates, thanks for your decisive, and passionate defense of a culture that has proven to be the most loving and productive institution in the history of man. Your anything goes attitude will pay off big in future years. Your respect for the common American Families way of life, that hundreds of thousands of Americans in the past have died to protect, is evident, in the way you stood up to protect the institution that God had put together and that no man is allowed to tear asunder.

The only explanation for this attitude of the social moderates I can come up with is they are in the business that will benefit from same sex marriage. Lets see, well there should be a boost in the wedding planning industry right off the bat. Maybe you could start one of those Las Vegas style chapels out by the Des Moines airport so they can fly in get married and fly out in one day!! Then think of the boom in the divorce business, same sex partners tend to make more money than heterosexual couples so lawyers will be able to do more divorces for cash than they are now.

Oh and here is a good side effect for you Fiscally conservative, but Socially liberal people. By encouraging the risky behavior of homosexuality you will be able to put more patients in the health care system than there already are, increasing demand, and raising cost. Yes indeed you really thought this out!! All because you lacked the guts ,or rather considered yourself too sophisticated, to defend a lifestyle you would never choose or want your children to choose. CONGRATULATIONS!!

Well in the fine Iowa tradition of taxing or charging a fee for all legal activity that the state does not approve of (i.e. smoking,etc) which I do not smoke my self. I propose the State Legislature propose a bond of $1,000 on all same sex marriages performed in Iowa, to be held in lieu of the results of a referendum on permanently banning same sex marriage in Iowa. The bond will be returned if the referendum comes out in favor of same sex marriage. If not the State will keep the money. A $1,000 is a pretty cheap wedding if you think about it. Why shouldn't the state cash in on this? Anything goes right?

I would think this would be a windfall for all of the Socially Moderate, Fiscally Conservative big government lawyers and bankers out there who are working both parties but don't want to impose their personal beliefs on any one. Its just business guys!! Anything goes!!

This same sex marriage, anything goes attitude, really exposes what has happened to our economy, when we are willing to consider that marriage is something other than God made it, doesn't it follow that our business judgement would follow the same course? Anything goes, the fundamentals don't count, I am willing to accept anything as common, as long as i want to call it that.

So thanks again Socially moderate Republicans your appointment of two Iowa Supreme Court members who voted for this, and lack of leadership to make a ban of same sex marriage get through the legislature, is a stunning legacy that future generations will look back on and say THEY WERE GREAT AMERICANS!!

THE POSITIVE OF THINKING THE WORST!!

It has been sometime since I a have posted, I have been taking in much of the disaster that is becoming America. That's negative thinking you say? Well lets take a look at thinking negatively.

The best example I have seen of thinking negatively is the plane crash in the Hudson River. I watched the interview of the pilot and I believe what saved all of his passengers, was his preparation for something he hoped would never happen. He said he saw where a pilot had tried to land an Air India plane on the ocean and it didn't work out and the plane broke up. So since then he had studied, and practiced in his glider the proper way to land a plane with out power, and as smoothly as possible. He had the procedure down to where he was starting to give lectures about it. Now what if he had said that a wreck like is too negative of a possibility to happen to me and never prepared? Allot of people including him self would be dead right now. His negative thinking worked out in a positive way.

Now lets look at the disaster that is becoming the American economy, and the taking away of our children's freedom. How is it negative to say that the wreck less spending that our government has done since last August isn't going to work? Do we have any examples of this working in the past? Haven't we seen year after year, the government slip farther and farther behind on its budget, and incur debt on future generations, that will plainly cause our children to never know the prosperity that past generations have enjoyed?

There is still time 60% of this last spending bill will not be spent until after 2010,now I know the Republican Party is drooling thinking it will be 1994 all over again. Please tell me how you intend to win if you put challengers out there who essentially, say they will do the same thing but not as badly, or expect incumbents who voted for bailouts last fall, and are not voting for them now to explain the change of heart?
The American people are not that dumb. Lets think negatively here, lets up and say that things are not going well, admit to the public that their 401k probably isn't bouncing back very soon, have new faces out there who believe we need to get back to the fundamentals of the constitution. Have incumbents running for reelection who don't have to explain a double standard, and maybe, just maybe the Republic can be saved, along with it our children's future.

You see we have dropped the ball when it comes to them, the vote buying done through the appropriations process, and the total lack of oversight by the press, will have future generations wondering what happened. They will look back on this time and realize they were not loved enough by past generations because we didn't stop to think what will happen if this plan doesn't work. It can be argued that since this has been going on for several generations already, that our predecessors are guilty of this too.

We had a chance to stop it. This country was given to us from past generations to hand over in better shape, or at least the same shape as we received it. We failed to look into the mirror and take responsibility for the things we have done. Just like Captain Sullivan, we had seen crashes in the past but failed to study the problem, and come up with a positive solution through cautious reasoning.

Caution and prudence would have served America in this case, instead of HOPE. Now our children will be left with a tyranny caused by incompetence, more than evil.