Freedom

Since election ballots can be confusing, and the issues can be more so, I was asked by several people to prepare some notes on the issues that we will be voting on this November. I have researched websites, news articles, the legislation itself, as well as talked and emailed people in the community. Here are the issues 1, 2 and 3 as well as my opinions of them.

Issue 1

Summary – Increases the maximum age that a person can be elected or appointed judge from the current 70 to 75.

Yes – Increases the age to 75
No – Leaves it at 70

My Opinion – I am voting YES. Since ignorance, incompetence, and stupidity are not respecters of age I see no reason to put age limits. Especially since we have measures in place to deal with situations where a judge is mentally or physically incapable of serving regardless of age. Also, as always, we can vote judges out if we feel they aren’t doing a good job.

Issue 2

Summary – Enacts or rejects SB5

Yes – Approves the law
No – Rejects the law

My Opinion – I am voting YES. I am very much in favor of SB5. This changes the way public unions (people who are public servants) collectively bargain. I have heard so much crap and lies about this that this has made me pretty angry. Since the NO supporters can’t come up with any real reason why this shouldn’t pass I don’t feel I need to defend it too much. Since it is hard to find what this bill actually does I made this little list. This bill does quite a bit of reorganizing government unions including the following:
- This WILL NOT end collective bargaining. Actually, the law hasn’t changed. The new law states the same as the old law: “Public employees have the right to… bargain collectively with their public employers to determine wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment.” The only difference is that Issue 2 helps to better define what those “terms and conditions” are. Since the old law was passed nearly 30 years ago perhaps it was time for a little review?
- Public unions will now pay up to 15% of their health care premiums if they are not currently doing so. (private sector workers pay around 30%. How much are you paying?)
- Pension will be an annual payment of the average of the employees 3 highest annual salaries.
- Public union members will now pay their pension contribution (about 10%) instead of the tax payer paying the employees portion. We as the employer are paying our share of the employee pension and the employees share. We will now pay the employer share of about 14% and the employee will pay about 10%
- Nothing in issue 2 determines salary levels. Ends automatic step pay increases, meaning that you don’t just get a raise because you keep coming to work. Going toward a merit based system.
- Performance will be added as a factor, that is 1 factor, in determining teacher salaries.
- Ohio’s public safety employees are already prohibited from striking. Issue 2 simply expands that restriction to all state and local government. employees. Strikes are rarely used to settle a dispute, and, more importantly, they carry the potential to put schools, safety and services at risk if workers are allowed to walk off the job. Most federal government employees have long been prohibited from striking.
- Arbitration will now be carried out by an elected official instead of an independent arbitrator. This does many things in regard to transparency in negotiations and letting the taxpayer have a say in negotiations. In fact, if the elected officials choose the most expensive contract offer, taxpayers can take it to the ballot as a referendum.

Issue 3

Summary – Adds an amendment to the Ohio State Constitution which prohibits the federal government from requiring you to purchase health care coverage. This counters the Individual Mandate of healthcare coverage.

Yes – Adds the amendment to our constitution prohibiting Individual Healthcare Mandates
No – Does not add the amendment to our constitution

My Opinion – I am voting YES. Apparently we need to have safeguards in place to prevent the government from requiring us to buy services. As a lover of freedom this is a big issue for me. I could go on and on about individual freedom, (which I have often), but I will just leave it to say that I should not be required to buy services by the government.

It seems the news for the last few weeks, and for the next few, is all about the Debt Limit. Here is my basic summary of Debt Limit Drama up to this point.

Federal Government: Hey. I need more credit limit.

Representatives: Ok, but you have to reduce your spending.

Federal Government: Ok, but if I reduce spending you have to raise taxes.

Representative: No we are not going to raise taxes. If you want more credit limit just reduce your spending.

Federal Government: YOU WANT THE END OF THE WORLD BECAUSE YOU WONT GIVE ME MORE CREDIT!!!!!

Representatives: Ummmm…I told you that you could have more credit, but you have to reduce the amount you spend. You are in debt and need to implement a plan so
that you don’t just keep running up your credit debt.

Federal Government: YOU HATE OLD PEOPLE AND WANT TO SEE THEM DIE BY NOT GETTING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK!!!!

Representatives: No, we just want you to not spend 40% more than you bring in. Your current lifestyle is unsustainable. You generate 40% of debt for every dollar you spend.

Federal Government: Well you just need to raise taxes. That will give me more money so that I don’t have to borrow so much.

Representatives: You waste a lot of money. Your spending is going up up up. If you want a higher credit limit to borrow more you need to show that your plan isn’t to just accrue an infinite amount of debt and you will get your spending under control.

Federal Government: YOU ARE JUST DOING ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO CONTRIDICT THIS PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU JUST DON’T LIKE HIM. YOU ARE NOT BEING REASONABLE!!!

This arguing back and forth makes my head hurt. So basically this all started out with the fact that the U.S. Federal government is coming up on the max amount that it can borrow. The government has maxed out its credit card and wants to raise that limit so that it can pay its bills. Recently there has been a movement of fiscal responsibly. Basically people want the government to be more responsible with its money and stop spending so much. This has been a growing movement and has taken the name of the Tea Party movement. This is of course in reference to the Boston Tea Party, but the TEA also stands for Taxed Enough Already. If you don’t really know about these people I’m sure you have a local chapter with a website. Check them out and see what they say about themselves. Their whole purpose is to advocate greater fiscal responsibility by the federal government. Some of that includes lower taxes, and reducing the size and scope of government to reduce its cost.
In the fall of 2010 this movement swept several representatives into congress. These representatives and those they represent feel that federal spending is out of control and seemingly growing unchecked. It has been doing this for quite some time but needs to be stopped. They feel that spending needs to be reduced, borrowing needs to be reduced in order to stop the massive, and seemingly infinite amount of borrowing money to create debt.
So in the middle of all this feeling of federal spending and borrowing being out of control you have this issue of whether or not to allow the government to borrow even more. So it starts out simply enough. The federal government has a lot of bills. They have too many bills to be paid for by the money they bring in so they need to borrow money to pay the bills. Those who were elected to represent these people who feel that the spending is out of control are in control of raising the amount the federal government can borrow. The representatives say we will raise the amount that you can borrow but only if you reduce the amount you spend. Currently you spend 40% more than you make and you need to reduce that. This is where the negotiations should be happening. For the last few weeks the discussion and debate and deals should have been about how much spending cuts would be necessary for the representatives to raise the debt limit. You need to remember this. This is the whole key. This is the root. If you get past all the fog and mirrors and misdirection this is the core argument. HOW MUCH SPENDING DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE TO CUT IN ORDER TO GET THE DEBT LIMIT INCREASE IT NEEDS TO PAY ITS OBLIGATIONS. This is not a discussion that you hear. I have not heard this except for probably the first day of the Debt negotiations. What has happened is several different people from different political parties have injected so much other issues that we are not even discussing the core issue. We are not trying to reach a deal on the thing we should be trying to reach a deal on.
So almost immediately the federal government countered the cut proposal, not with an amount to be cut to get what it needs/wants, but rather with the amount of tax increases for the cuts. The debate shifted to tax increase versus spending cuts and the spending cut versus debt ceiling increase was thrown off to the side. It wasn’t completely left behind. The only time you really hear about debt ceiling now is when both sides blast the other about the tax versus cut debate. This side won’t even give a little. They won’t raise taxes on the rich in order to raise the debt ceiling. They shouldn’t have to give in to tax increases. This is not the agreement. Very clever statesmen have shifted the debate, but it needs to be brought back.
Tax increases have no place whatsoever in the negotiations. If you want the ceiling raised then you cut spending. It is that simple. The compromising has to happen on the amount of cutting. The representatives need to take less cuts than they hope for at this time. The federal government needs to let go of the tax increases at this time.
The increasing issue I have with this whole drama of the debate is the constant demonizing of people, especially the representatives and the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement is probably the biggest proponent of reduced spending in American society today. I am reading and hearing things like The Tea Party wants the country to default on its obligations, or want to protect the rich, or want Social Security recipients to starve, or want the middle class to be homeless, or are just doing this because the hate the president for no reason, or many, many other things. These are just flat out lies. They are just asking for spending cuts, but they are being accused of anything and everything, except that they may actually have a point about the fact that the federal government needs to reduce its spending. I am sick and tired of people who feel that the federal government may be wrong or need to be reformed being called stupid or idiots or weirdoes or crackpots. I’m sick of normal common sense views being twisted and distorted, and being portrayed as off the wall nonsense. These ideas are just dismissed as insanity instead of being given the proper respect they deserve as valid points of view for discussion. I am sure that I will write more about this at some point in the future, but I’m going to stop on this for now. I just want to encourage you to not get lost in the rhetoric and emotion that is sweeping back and forth surrounding this debate like a hurricane. Remember the item that is being asked for and the price that is being asked to be paid.

Well the New Hampshire debate was last night. I tuned in and watched the whole thing hoping to get some sort of idea of what each candidate really stood for. I was hoping to not just get a bunch of platitudes and worthless regurgitated rhetoric, or a bunch of talk about all of the things that the current president is doing and has done wrong. I was hoping for an actual substantive glimpse into each candidate. I think that this debate did show a bit of what each candidate was about. There were indeed some candidates who were more evasive than the others and some candidates who seemed to want to talk about President Obama’s wrongdoing more than the others.
It seems that every time a politician is asked to answer they are more often than not trying to find a way to not answer a question. Debates can make this worse because each person is trying to get points out for the public to hear that may not be the answer to the question that they have been asked at this point in time. There was a bit of this, but I would say overall all seven candidates did appear to attempt to be answering the questions asked of them. Of course most questions were of very complex issues and it is difficult to get a full answer out in 30 seconds. Overall I did like the format of this debate early in the process because it gave more of a glimpse into each of the candidates due to the large number of issues that were covered. The Republican presidential candidate field is large and growing day by day it seems. I would like at least one more of this type of debate and then get down to longer format debates were we can get a bit more in depth on specific issues.
In order to understand how I came to my opinions of this debate and the candidates I guess I need to explain a bit about what I was looking for. I, like most other people, watched this to see if there was a candidate for me in this field. What is the candidate for me? Domestically I was looking for a candidate who was most supportive of individual freedom. I am looking for the President to be someone who realizes that the role of government is to defend me, not rule me. It’s role is not to protect me, but to protect my rights to make choices and to protect me when others make choices that will affect me. Foreign Policy wise I am looking for someone who is going to protect the interests and safety of this country while at the same time respecting other governments and peoples. This is the very short description of what I was looking and watching for and the lens through which I was watching each candidate. Everyone’s opinion is biased. I hope I have given a clear enough definition of my bias so that you can understand each candidate, as I am portraying them, more clearly.
I have thought a lot about how to write this and I have decided to just give my impression of each candidate. I will include some of the things that they said, and some of my impressions of the things that were said and the candidates themselves. Again these are my opinions and impressions and are by no means meant to be considered hard fact. You must listen to each candidate and see if you agree with me or not. I have opinions on all of the candidates so I will just go in alphabetical order.
Michelle Bachman. On her first question she took the opportunity to announce that later she would announce that she was running for president. This annoyed me for a few reasons. She was involved in a presidential debate so I would sure hope that she was running and not wasting our time. She was taking away from the debate time by waiting until the debate had started and making that statement instead of answering her question. I just took this as annoying political grandstanding.
Rep. Bachman did seem to me to be very firm in her beliefs and very opinionated which I can respect even if I don’t agree with every single thing she says and stands for. She did talk about her experiences a lot and seemed to want to talk about the current Presidency more than the other candidates. She gave firm answers most of the time like when she said that we should not be in Libya and since she was on some intelligence committee, which I can’t remember, she said that we don’t even know who the rebels are so how do we know if we should support them? She took a firm stand on repealing Obamacare saying she DEFINANTLY would. She would reinstate the Don’t ask don’t tell policy and that she was 100% pro life. She did explain that the tea party wasn’t how the media characterizes them. She said they were disenfranchised democrats and independents also. The issue I had with this is that she is everything that the media says the tea party is, and showed none of the other aspects of the tea party that she mentioned. Except she seems intelligent which I hear that we tea party people are not. So that was a change from the stereotype.
I found her a bit less clear on other issues although she sounded like she was clear. I guess I just found some of her answers confusing. She was asked if we should raise the debt ceiling or leave it unless we get spending cuts. Her reply was that she had voted not to raise the debt ceiling in the past. I am hesitant to try to assume what she meant. Did she mean that yes she would not raise it unless we got the cuts? Or was she just talking about her record? Either way I kind of thought the question was avoided because there was not a clear yes or no. The other answer I found really confusing was when asked if she felt gay marriage was states rights or not. She said yes she felt it was states rights even though she believed marriage to be between one man and one woman. This is very clear. Then later she said as president she would support a constitutional amendment to make marriage defined as between one man and one woman. Doesn’t the amendment trump the state?
As her parting gift she left us with some attempted comedy. All of the candidates were asked which of the other six on the stage they would chose as Vice President. I know that is a question you cannot answer. Her answer was an American Idol contest to decide. I know probably a joke and some thought it was hilarious I’m sure, but I didn’t find it funny. She didn’t get a

Herman Cain. He is a businessman and showed that he would approach issues from a business standpoint. He talked often of fixing the root of the problem and not just patch fixes.
He seemed to be firm with his opinions also. He said there is no such thing as too big to fail and the government needs to leave markets alone. He mentioned several times that government needs to get out of things. Less regulations. He took a stand by saying if a child of two non citizens is born here that does not automatically make it a citizen. He seemed to me to take the common sense approach to most things and not the government approach. He also seemed to have specific plans like what tax rates and different step plans to deal with the immigration issue, and so on. On foreign policy he did say that we need to understand the problems before just jumping in.
The big stumbling block for him came when asked about a comment he had made indicating that he was not going to appoint Muslims in his administration? There was some noticeable back peddling saying something to the effect that he meant that he would interview them to make sure that they weren’t militant Muslims. He then said that the people of his administration would be faithful to the ideas of America. He mentioned that some militant Muslims want to inject Shari law into our system and he was not going to let that happen. He would only have Americans faithful to America.

Newt Gingrich. He was still there after all of the members of his staff that recently left. He made several good statements like the presidential election wasn’t the only important one. The elections for the House of Representatives and Senate were very important also. He did this at the cost of avoiding ansering the question he was asked which, as I said earlier, annoyed me greatly even thought i agreed with what he said.
He mentioned less regulations on businesses. He mentioned privatizing NASA in some way which I wasn’t really clear about. On the Herman Cain Muslim thing he said something about we didn’t allow Nazis or communists in administrations so militant Muslims could be excluded. I think both he and Herman were talking about just anti American infiltrators? Again who knows what they meant. I only heard what they said.
For the most part I kind of felt he was semi directionless. He would say things and I would just go….what? He was defiantly hurt a lot by the short time for answers and not being able to get his entire answer out. He was asked about his Rightwing Social Engineering statement about the Ryan budget and basically tried to say it was taken out of context. He then proceeded to say that if the American people don’t’ think it is a good idea perhaps it isn’t. I do see his point but he should have come out strong on that instead of trying to back pedal.

Ron Paul What can I say. This guy just seemed too excited and passionate about his positions on things to be able to communicate them to people. I knew a bit of what he was talking about but I can see how people would think that he was just ranting.
You have to listen carefully to get to the substance of Ron Paul. This guy is very individual freedom! He took several stands about the role of government. Gay marriage is a state issue. The federal government should not be in the bailout business. Services should not be provided at the government expense for illegal immigrants. On and on he was consistent. Less government. Fiscal responsibility. People have the right to live how they wish as long as it doesn’t infringe on the freedoms of others.
The thing that he is obviously the most passionate about is the Federal Reserve and currency. He makes many good and interesting points which I won’t go into here but you can visit one of his websites to find out more.
Foreign policy is the thing that I disagree with him the most. He wants to just bring the military home from abroad. I can see his arguments, but I think that there is a lot of instability many places in the world and you can’t just come home. Especially in places like Afghanistan you can’t just leave tomorrow. Phase out is one thing. Complete withdrawal from all bases and all wars and conflicts is completely another.

Tim Pawlenty The King of the Backpedal award goes to Mr. Pawlenty. He was asked about his using the term Obomneycare with Mitt Romney two people to his left. He basically said he used that term because President Obama said that his health care plan was based on the one that Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts. He also gets the oddest thing blamed on Obama on the night award.
There wasn’t much to separate him from anyone else in my mind. He did take stands on things such as government created the housing mess and he would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and woman. His strongest stand came when asked who was the better VP pick in 08 Palin or Biden? He said Palin because Biden has been wrong on everything. Everything Biden does is wrong. I wonder what he would say if Biden was two people to his left…

Mitt Romney. He went into this as the frontrunner in the polls, and I don’t think anyone did anything to close the gap much.
He spoke strongly about the bailout being the wrong thing to do. And that was proven by the fact that GM went through bankruptcy restructuring which they should have just done in the first place. The only thing we did by stepping in was cost us money and give power to the United Auto Workers union which will exaggerate the existing problems down the road. On the Herman Cain Muslim issue he did say that no one group should be singled out.
He wins my Most Elusive award by sidestepping the most questions. Things like If you don’t get the spending cuts should you raise the debt limit anyway? He just said that there needed to be spending cuts to get the raise, but would never say if we should not raise without cuts or what would happen if we didn’t raise. When asked about the change to don’t ask don’t tell he said they should have left it alone, but didn’t say what he would do about it when in office.
He also has the whole flip flop thing. Was for abortion now is against. Healthcare mandate in his state, but is against Obamacare? Is he just trying to get elected or does he actually believe things?

Rick Santorum. I didn’t know much about this guy going in and I still don’t. He took many of the same stands as others with nothing to really separate him. He had criticized Romney about his perceived abortion and healthcare change of heart, but when asked about that and given the opportunity to confront Romney he just sputtered.
Well that is my brief summary of the debate. There were many, many more details, but those were the highlights to me. Those were the ones that made my notes.
At this point I am not 100% behind any candidate. I will wait for the rest of the contenders to enter the fray before making my decision.

     The United States of America has been referred to as the last best hope of man on earth several times and by several people.  Ronald Regan and Abraham Lincoln come immediately to mind.  That is quite a statement.  What does that mean?  Why is the United States the last best hope?  What does the United States offer more so than any other nation?  The answer is simple.  It is one word.  Freedom.

                The system of government we were blessed with here is unique.  We need to remember that.  Yes we are different.  And that is something to be proud of.  We are Americans.  We value freedom.  We value it so much that we feel that it is worth fighting for.  More than that.  We feel it is worth dying for.  If you have something so valuable to you that you feel that it is worth your life why would you not be proud of it? 

                So why is freedom worth fighting and dying for?  What would make a person go to such lengths?  Why is freedom so valuable?  We need to first determine what freedom is.  Freedom is you.  So, if freedom is you, then why are so valuable?  You are valuable because there is only one of you and there will never be another one like you.   You are the most unique thing to ever exist, or that ever will exist.  This not only makes you valuable, but it makes you the most valuable thing to ever exist or that ever will exist.  Freedom is you owning all of you.  The more of your freedom that you give to someone else the less you have for yourself, so the more freedom you give away the more of the value of you that you give away.    

     Let this be a warning.  Money, Gold, positions can all be gained and lost.  You cannot.  If you have given up half of yourself you can never go out and get another half.  If you do give up part of yourself the only thing that has the same value is that piece.  If you want to be priceless again you cannot replace the lost part of you with something else.  If you want to be priceless again you will have to retrieve the missing piece.

     We quickly forget where we came from, what we have, and how much it is worth.  Freedom begins with remembering.  It is funny that many of the people that we consider great Americans  actually began life as subjects to a monarchy.  There came a point where these subjects of the crown realized that their monarch really didn’t care about any grievances that they had.   They had tried to get these grievances addressed, but their requests, and pleas, and cries fell on deaf ears.  The oppression of being subject to another person was weighing heavy.  So heavy that these subjects were feeling crushed.  At this point difficult decisions had to be made.  These were the same decisions that any subject in the history of mankind had to make.  Accept the servitude or cast off the bonds of a servant.  Much discussion began as to what sort of government to form.  As you would expect from people who felt an overwhelming oppression they just wanted to be free.  They decided that they no longer wanted to be servants of the English crown and drafted the Declaration of Independence to send to the king of England.  This document not only stated that they were dissolving the political bands which had bound them to England, but stated why they were doing so in great detail. 

                The war for independence was on.  The fight for freedom had begun in full force.  This is a fight that has been fought throughout history.  While the fighting with weaponry was raging there was a fight of words and ideals going on also.  These people knew that they wanted to be free, but weren’t really sure how to go about setting up a government to preserve that freedom once it was attained.  The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were drafted and voted on by the colonies.  This was the first governing constitution of the United States of America Over the next decade and more there was debate.  There were men studying past governments where men had been free and seeing what was right and wrong about those in the past.  There was a lot of time spent learning from the past.  It had become clear that The Articles of Confederation were lacking in some areas so a new constitution was drafted.  The main point of this system of government was that those who founded the government wanted to make sure that it was defined who ruled.  It was defined that the rule of the people would never come from one person.  They decided that the best way to preserve freedom was not to have a person watching everyone to make sure that freedom was protected.  The best way to preserve freedom was to set up a system where laws were the ruler.  These laws would be designed to protect freedom.  When you have more than one person you have to have laws to make sure that one person does not violate the freedom of another.  This was the foundation for this union of states.  A system was set up so that freedom would be preserved from being trampled on by another.  This system would be watched over by laws not by a ruler.  The laws would be watched over by The Constitution.  This was the best way that they could ensure that this union of states would be a collection of Free People living peaceably together, not a collection of subjects living together.  

                This is what we are.  That is what this country is.  The last best hope of man on earth is not the best government on earth, but it is the best form of government on earth.  It is a place on earth were people are guaranteed protection to come and live together in peace as Free people without being subject to the rule and opinion of the government.  It is a place where you can live and be a subject to no one.   

                I am proud of this.  I am proud to be an American.   I am proud that I bow to no man.  I am proud that I am equal to every other man and none are above me.  I am proud that I live in a place where I am guaranteed full ownership of myself.   This may make me seem like I am arrogant, but it is not.  It is pride. I am proud because I know that I have something so special that humans have been fighting for it since the dawn of time and I have it simply by my birth.  I will not forget how much this is worth.  I will fight to keep this.   I would die so that others can keep this.

I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.

It’s time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, “We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government.”

This idea? that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”

The Founding Fathers knew a government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, “What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.” But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we’re always “against,” never “for” anything.

We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments….

We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward I restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him…. But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure….

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector’s share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor’s fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can’t socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he’ll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what’s at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

 

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use of the Sourcebook.

(c)Paul Halsall May1998
halsall@murray.fordham.edu

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1964reagan1.html

     This is a post that i posted as a reply on http://montgop.com/a-blueprint-for-gop-victory/.  I still believe that freedom goes beyond any political party and does not belong exclusively to one.  I happen to have chosen the Republican party but i see that it is far from perfect.  I had a choice to either try to change it or not to associate with any party.  I will try to change and see what happens.  At time of this post my reply was marked as “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” So if the post is no longer there when you take a look then i guess it didn’t pass moderation.

     This was a reply to A Blueprint for GOP Victory.   When i read that i felt that was all well and good but the goal is not GOP Victory, it is Freedom Victory.  I felt that i should say something because, you know, I’m a little opinionated.

Here is my reply:

Those who know me know that I am opinionated to say the least.  However, I am not stupid enough to think that I have all of the answers. I also do not think that I am 100% right.  I voice my opinions and welcome debate.  If I am wrong I love to be shown so.  This lessens the amount of time that I look like a fool.  All I ask is that you read my comments in their entirety and then respond.

 I have been a Republican since I can remember.  I turned 18 in 1996 and was so excited to get involved.  I was excited because it was the first presidential election that I would be allowed to help determine the outcome by voting.  I was so eager to get involved.  I actually campaigned for Buchanan during the primaries on my high school campus.  This was a high school in northern California which was not conservative to say the least.  As the years rolled by I became disillusioned by the political process.  I pretty much became indifferent believing that nothing I did mattered.  Then 2008 happened.  I saw that people could make a difference.   People were elected based on the promise of change and hope with no substance to those promises.   Americans were ready for a change.  I was ready for a change.   Something awoke inside of me but I wasn’t sure what.

                As time went by and we were hit with more and more of this crazy legislation I begin to do some searching.  What I found was The Constitution.  I found Individual Freedom.  I realized that that what was waking me up was the fact that my freedoms were getting ripped away.  I began to look back and I realized that they had been taken away slowly for a while, but all of a sudden were being taken at an alarming rate.  Every day it seemed I would read of something else the Federal Government was doing that didn’t feel quite right.  So I began to look to my republican leadership.  Looking for someone to guide me and say this is where we are going.  I was looking for someone who felt like I did.   What I saw was a lot of squabbling and name calling.  I saw republicans on the ropes.  I saw republicans trying to do the right thing, and trying to hold back this tidal wave of out of control government, but they were doing it quietly.  The republicans were on the defensive.  Other parties are shouting from the rooftops “the republicans are the party of no”, “the republicans are the party of the rich white man”, and so on.   The reply I heard from my party was a quiet “no no that is not true”.  Then “tea party movement” happened.  It is still happening.  This was not about this party versus that party.   This was about real issues.

                First of all my first allegiance is to my country.  My party is just something that I happen to be associated with because it is a group of people who think like me on most political issues.  My love of this party rests in the fact that it and I agree most of the time.  I do feel that I need to say that I am more concerned with what happens with American than I am with what happens to the GOP.   I think this is something that we often lose sight of.  We seem to be so concerned with how to keep ourselves in power that we lose sight of doing the right thing.  I think we should just focus on standing up for Constitutional values and the people will come. 

                I think we should stand up first and foremost for Individual Freedom.  Almost everyone regardless of party wants freedom.  We need to present issues in these terms.  How does this issue violate or secure my freedom?

                We need to admit our mistakes.  When we are being attacked and told we did this and we did that if it was wrong admit it.  This is how we have gotten bad reputations in all of the demographics mentioned.  Media, ads, and other parties themselves focus on some mistake we made and our response is to focus on some mistake they made.  Let’s take the wind out of our attacker’s sails by just saying you are right.  We can admit it.   What other political party does that?  Let’s act like people and not politicians.  People are turned off by politicians because they feel that they are only there to procure their own future and are going to do whatever it takes to do so.  Let’s show that we are not like other political parties.  Show that we are the party of the people because we actually are people.   

                When our opponents attack and say we did such and such thing, we have a couple of options.  If we support what we did then we need to stand up and say “yes we did that. It was the right thing to do and here is why”.  If it was a mistake we need to say “yes we did that.  It was wrong; this is what I should have done”.  Every answer we give needs to have a solution in it.  America should never hear just a “No” from us.  They should hear “No, and this is why, and this is our alternative to that”.  If you feel that the media is cutting us off with No, then speak louder and be more adamant.  Find other outlets.  Do whatever you have to do to get our message out.  While fending off attacks and using these attacks as opportunities to share our message, we must also be proactive. If we want the middle class or college vote then we need to show each of them that we are working for them and show them how.

                While fending off attacks and using these attacks as opportunities to share our message, we must also be proactive with the message of our goals for America.  Focus on the message not the opponent.  It seems we spend so much time talking about what the other guy did that we don’t have time to get the message of what we want to do out.  Give Americans solutions with substance.  Educate Americans on issues.  Teach them what The Constitution says and why we support or oppose the issue.  Show Americans that we are truly the party of ALL of the people not just a select few.

We may have all been endowed with individual freedom but that freedom cannot interfere with the freedom of others.  In order for true individual freedom to exist, then all individuals must have equal freedoms.  The only way all individuals can have freedom is for all to have equal freedom.  If all do not have equal freedom then the freedom must be governed and dispensed to individuals by some sort of ruler.    If freedoms that I take interfere with your freedoms then we no longer have equal freedom. Responsibility is a form of this freedom.  Every individual with equal freedom must be responsible for how they use their freedoms.  I cannot use my freedoms in a way that makes you responsible. If I do this, or am allowed to do this, then that is a violation of your freedom.   This is a key and often forgotten component of freedom.  Responsibility.  We, as a nation, seem to want freedoms, but don’t want to suffer the consequences that come with the actions from those freedoms.  This is one of the things that has caused loss of individual freedom.  

I am not trying to belittle contributing factors to peoples decisions.  I know that outside factors influence every decision that we make, but since the freedom to make the decision rests solely with an individual then the responsibility for the consequences from that decision rest with that same individual.  For example, if I am angry with you, and I go into your house and kill your family, who is responsible for that action?  Are you responsible because you made me angry?  Should you be convicted of the murder? No. I had a freedom to chose to murder or not.  I chose to murder.   I chose to violate the freedom of others.  I am responsible.  It is simple.   The exercise of my freedom violated the freedom of another.  I am responsible for that violation.   

This applies to everything.  Not just murder.  If I spill coffee on myself it is my fault.  How can I shift the responsibility to you because it is too hot?  If you spilled coffee on me then that is your fault.  If I agree to a loan that I cannot afford it is my fault.  It is not your fault for giving me the money, it is my fault for taking the money and saying yes, I will pay you back under these terms. The list goes on and on and on.  I feel bad for those who are so angered by someone else that they commit murder.  I am saddened by all of those who could not make the agreed upon house payment and are losing their homes.  I think it is horrible.  However, our government is not set up based on feeling.  It is set up so that we can all be free.  It is set up to protect those freedoms.  We cannot just decide to violate someone’s freedom because of how we feel.

     Where are the defenders of freedom?  Where are those who are willing to stand up and say enough is enough?  Where are those who are willing to speak out and say these are my rights and I will defend them?  Who is speaking out for the individual?  Who is focused on preserving freedom?  These are the questions you should be asking when it is time for an election.  How does your representative feel?   The liberty of the individual should be the basis for every decision they make.   If they are using some other form of measurement to reach their decisions then they are not your representative.  

     Find the root.  What is the root?  Individual freedom is the root.  Our entire system of government is based on this.  This is the first test that every issue must pass.   This is what protects the sheep when they and two wolves are voting on what to have for dinner.  Does this interfere with my freedom?  Does it interfere with my neighbor’s freedom?  If the answer is yes to either of these issues then it is really a non issue.  We don’t seem to care about these issues.  We just charge blindly in with our verbal guns blazing hoping we wound more of those with an opposing point of view than they wound of us.  The problem is everyone loses.   If one person loses one freedom then we all have lost it.  We have been so concerned with making sure everyone else feels and acts the same as we do that we have missed all of the freedom we have given up.  I say given up but that is not completely accurate.  We really still have the freedom we just need to start exercising it. We have sort of loaned it out and forgotten that it was ours.   How do we exercise our freedom?  How do we regain these freedoms that this country was founded on?  How do we recapture the freedoms for which such a high price was paid to obtain and continually paid to maintain?  We vote.  We allow people to govern us who understand the concept of individual freedom.  If those who we allow to govern us have forgotten that then it is our job to remind them.   

     I strongly believe you can operate within a political party, but political parties as a whole no longer represent the individual.  They only represent themselves.  They seem to only be concerned with gaining or maintaining power.  To do this they demonize everyone else.  The bad thing is we fall for these tactics.  It is impossible to debate any issues because every issue is so clouded with political party.  Can one incident be discussed without the discussion degenerating into a well your past party members did this or that?  We need to change that. Revolutionize your party.  Reform your party.  Focus on issues not stereotypes.   Remind your party that individual liberty is what is important, not having more members that the other guy.  Thomas Jefferson said “The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. We ought, for so dear a state to sacrifice every attachment and every enmity.”

     I highly recommend that you go back and read not only The Constitution in its entirety, but several of the founding documents.   Our Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document that gets overlooked often.   This was the document that spelled out what those who formed our nation felt was wrong with their current government.  It lists what they expect of the government and lists specific grievances against their current government. There is one section in particular that I enjoy.  It is rather long, but worth the read.  

     “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

     There are so many wonderful concepts in this paragraph.  I am sure you will see me refer to it time and time again.  The concept I want to talk about now is “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.  The Federal Government has become destructive to the ends of personal freedom.   All people are no longer equal under the law. However, we have the power to Alter government.  We do this by using our electoral process. What is the best way to make this alteration? Do we just vote out one party and vote in another? Not necessarily. 

     Start with local government and work your way up to the Federal level.  So much focus is placed on government on the Federal level that we virtually ignore local government.  If it was important enough to create a position for one person to govern over others, then it is important that we have a good person in that position.  So look at each and every person running for each and every office and ask yourself which of those would be most likely to base their decisions on protecting individual freedom.  How can we find this out?  Why not just ask?  Candidates are very accessible.  Most, if not all, have a website with a means to contact them. Send an email asking how they feel about the issues that are important to you.  If you feel there are things that need to be changed ask the candidate and see if they feel the same way as you do.

     People are individuals.  No two people share the exact same views on every issue. We have stereotyped political parties.  We assume that if a person is associated with a certain party then they fit all of the stereotypes we have applied to that party.  It is important that we do not apply these stereotypes to specific candidates.   You need to find out what each one is really like, because each one is an individual.

     The more I study The Constitution the more I am struck by its incomprehensible genius.   Growing up I was taught that it was an important document and that it gave us freedom, but I never really knew why or how.  Sure you can read it and see obvious things like we are guaranteed to always be free from Government control of our religion, our speech, and our right to bear arms among many other things.  What I am just now beginning to comprehend is complexity with which our freedoms were guaranteed.  There had been other governments similar to ours in the history of the world, but none which expressly guaranteed the freedom of the individual.

     If there were only one person in the world then there would be no need for government.  If there are two or more then some form of government must exist.  Why is this? Not so one can rule over another.  The reason is the opposite. The reason that people need a form of government is to protect them from each other.  To protect their freedoms.   Those who set out to found this country understood that government was a necessary evil.  They knew that government was a balancing act.  Too little government and some would take away the freedom of others.  Too much and the government would take away the freedom of everyone.  So it was this balance between anarchy and government rule that The Constitution was meant to preserve. 

     Those who formed this country decided that the best way to protect the freedom of the individual was to form a government but keep the government as small as possible.  They wanted power concentrated in the individual then from the individual delegated to the local governments then the state governments and finally the federal government.  The main power rested with the state or a reason.  This country was founded as a Union of 13 different countries or states.  Today we don’t view each state as its own country but it is.  In fact the power of the state still exists.  Why would they do this and not just set up a democracy?  A pure democracy has been defined as “Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”.  They wanted to avoid this because that would take away the freedom of the sheep.  The reason they concentrated power at the local level was because they felt that people of like mind would gravitate together.  The founders were basically saying “ok. Since we have to have some form of government, let’s make it a coalition of small groups of people governing themselves.  This way the sheep can vote on what is for dinner over here and the wolves other there and no one group will have power over the other”.  

     The founders knew that people were different from each other and that only the basic set of rules should be applied to all.  They knew that people would want different things from government and feel that it should do different things.  They knew that some would want more of their freedoms delegated to the government and some would want less.  The Constitution allows for this variance.  It says that ok. This group over here can delegate as much of their freedoms to the government as they want and this group over there can delegate different freedoms.   The Constitution allowed us to do whatever we wanted to as long as we stuck to some basic rules, but it left a broad widow of possibilities.  Instead of embracing this and setting up communities in which to live where we are comfortable with the amount of freedom delegated to the government we have decided that every American must feel like we do.  We have taken things to the federal level to make sure that everyone feels like we do and does what we think is right.  This is no better than one religion trying to conquer all peoples instead of just letting people choose.  We as Americans were guaranteed this freedom of choice by The Constitution, and it is time that we started to exercise that freedom.