Battling the Tax Beast

Last time we looked at the first of the evil triad of over taxation, over regulation and currency manipulation in general terms. This week we will get specific and study the positions of the top tier Republican candidates. The good news is none of these guys (or gals) would even consider proposing a $500,000,000,000.00 tax increase and calling it a jobs bill and any Republican candidate would support the Bush tax rates at the minimum. However,  I don’t  in 2012 our goal should be to find the candidate less terrible, we should demand the best of the best and I believe if we ever have a chance to fundamentally change how taxes are levied this its year, thanks to the tea party is it.

“The tax code has become the new version of slavery and the IRS the overseers”

Herman Cain

One candidate who gets it is Herman Cain. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan introduces a revolutionary train of thought. The plan involves eliminating the current tax code and replacing it with a 3 part tax system a 9% flat tax rate, a 9% flat corporate rate and a 9% sales tax. The two theories of tax reform are flat tax (most proposals put this at 15-18%) or a fair tax i.e. sales tax of around 23%. The Cain plan will broaden the tax base make American cooperate rates currently among the highest in the world among the lowest. Would, in theory at least, be a tax cut too all American’s the lowest current bracket being 10%. (I know many people pay less then they get in refunds, but is that really fair? To use an Obamaism). The real beauty of the Cain plan to me is that it does away with the government’s ability to control through taxation and credit. We would pay a relatively small bill and be done with it. At first I was a little hesitant to give whole hearted endorsement as you will be introducing a new tax source in the sales tax.  How do we know that the 9-9-9 does not become 15-15-15? The protection against this is that it would take a 2/3 majority to raise taxes, given how hard it is to get 60 senators to agree on a controversial measure we will be assured that a tax increase will only happen at a truly necessary moment. In the new day of American tax attitude the 9-9-9 plan has the power to eliminate a huge percentage of the ill begotten power of the Federal Government and will eliminate most of the 430 billion dollars that the government uses to regulate and enforce the current tax code. Best of all it drives a steak through the heart of the death tax vampire once and for all. Herman Cain’s website gives a great summary of the plan at http://www.hermancain.com/999plan.

“

“I lean toward a flat tax. But I want to make it real flat, like zero.” --Ron Paul

On most subjects I have been critical of Ron Paul, consider it the difference between a conservative and a libertarian. When it comes to a bold stand and revolutionary thought on tax and spend policy Rep. Paul is as cutting edge as were Jefferson and Madison and their contemporaries. To appreciate Ron Paul’s position on the personal income tax a few relative points should be made. First America did not always have an income tax, it was not implemented until 1913, (by the way several fundamental changes to our republic were made in 1913, many of which were harmful to the cause of liberty how ironic if in 2012-2013 we would make a fundamental push back to advance liberty once again), secondly remember that the progressive income tax is not an American idea, it is Marxist “2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. “This is plank #2 in the Manifesto of the communist party and one of a disturbing number of similarities to modern liberalism. (Read for yourself http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

Ron Paul’s argument for the complete abolition of the income tax is made wonderfully in an article reprinted at a Ron Paul supporter site http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/  in addition Paul is in favor o abolishing capital gains which usually results in a double taxation of money, first when it is earned second after it has been invested., this would benefit both business and individuals

Ron Paul does not propose an alternate form of taxation. As he points out a third of revenue comes from personal income taxes and he would see the government shrink by one third. The only fly in the Ron Paul ointment is that a big part of his down sizing of government would be in defense and foreign relations and these are the only parts of the Federal government that I don’t support radical down sizing of.

For my tax plan, I take a page out of one of my great economists that I admire, Ronald Reagan.  And under my tax plan I want to adopt the Reagan tax plan. It brought the economic miracle of the 1980s. Why not go with what works? I want to reinstitute the Reagan tax model from the 1980s.”—Michelle Bachmann.

Rep. Bachman like most of our candidates does see both the social and economic benefits of lowering the tax rates and limiting regulation, but even “Ronaldus Magnus” (to steal a line from Rush) did not completely abolish the progressive system, still he took it from a top rate of 70% to 28%. It has since climbed back to 35%. While any plan based on Reagan is good I feel that we should look forward not back. Bachman would reduce the number of tax brackets and lower a lot of rates and would be a good plan…just not the best. http://www.michelebachmann.com/issues/americanjobsrightnow/ is an overview of the whole of her plan.

 I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate." Newt Gingrich

The best part of the Gingrich plan is the elimination of the capitol gains tax, and he would oppose any tax increases. For a guy who opposed the Paul Ryan budget plan on the grounds of social engineering he supports allowing the government to continue to control business, as he wants to modify the tax code to urge businesses to invest in research and

Development, but I would prefer the idea of taxing them less and letting them make up their own minds on research and development. Again though Newt’s plan has many good points, it would give an optional flat tax rate of 15%, and would head us into a “good place”,  here and now we can do better.

http://www.newt.org/solutions/jobs-economy

And for the record, I don't believe cutting taxes is the same thing as spending. A spending cap is meant to stop runaway spending, not runaway tax relief. Rick Perry 2/6/7

Very important point made by the Texas governor, it’s not the governments money! Rick Perry as governor has something of a mixed tax record, even if we eliminate his legilslative votes before leaving the Democrat party. I think the best we can honestly expect from Perry is little or no tax increases. The majority of Perry’s plan involves energy production and I am on board with that! But it’s for another week. http://www.rickperry.org/issues/jobs/ also though I am hard pressed to link to a ny times article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us/26tttaxes.html?pagewanted=all Perry’s own site gives little detail so we must look elsewhere.

 I’m for not taking more people’s money when they die. Rick Santorum 7/3/6

I like Rick Santorum always have, his tax proposals are not yet released in detail however and all we really know is that he doesn’t like Herman Cain’s plan. From his statements and interviews he seems most interested in cutting business taxes to spur economic growth which is good. He rightly points out that as long as American business is overtaxed they will continue to move jobs overseas. He also has indicated that he does not wish to lower the top income tax rates to as low as 25%, as that would cut revenue too much. I think taking more than a quarter of any man’s income is too much. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/transcript/help-wanted-rick-santorum-talks-taxes

And then you go on to say how are we going to bring down taxation, because we have the highest tax rate, next to Japan, in the world. That's -- that hurts our economy.  Mitt Romney

Romney would lower the corporate tax rate to 25%, which is helpful, as the top rate in now 35% and second highest in the world, and he supports the Bush tax rates, as well as being in the death to the death tax crowd. I don’t like his proposal to remove the interest and dividends tax only from those earning under $200k. The last thing I want is to add another graded tax scale to our tax code. Overall Romney’s plan is acceptable but is neither bold nor revolutionary. I would link directly to his plan but that involves a 160 page book, so here is an overview at http://www.mittromney.com/jobs with links to download the full plan or a summary.

It is within the Republican Party that actual ideas are debated and solutions put forth. Here we have a wonderful array of ideas of how to limit taxation and grow the economy. I have listed them from my first choice down. I think only Herman Cain’s plan at this point provides the power to fundamentally change the mechanizations of government and end the Marxist oppression of the IRS. If you think Marxist is too strong a word follow that Marx link and see if I’m wrong.

Until next time keep in the firing line.

The economic axis of evil

Over taxation, oppressive regulation and currency manipulation, these are the foes as we battle to put the economy back on track. The truth is all these issues form a tangled web of economic impediments and any legitimate jobs plan will need to address them all.

This is where our noble field is strongest. As the old military cliché says, let us first know our enemy. I remember as a kid sitting in school (the thought of which still gives me nightmares) hearing one teacher or the other say, “The American revolution was more about taxes and economics than it was freedom.” I thought “bummer” that just sounds so much less noble. Like wise I used to despise the thought that people voted with their wallets instead of consciences. What the founding fathers knew and teacher did not, and I have learned in the last 10-15 years, is that the power to tax is the power to control, and that freedom and taxation are now and have always been inseparable. One of the most fundamental questions in beginning a discussion of taxation is: “what is the purpose of taxes?” is it A) to raise revenue to fund the necessary functions of government or B) to encourage and discourage certain behaviors and equalize income disparity. Conservatives tend to be in the A category, though you will still find that many do support the progressive tax scale and the use of income levels to determine tax reward and “punishment” i.e. Mitt Romney’s eliminating capital gains on people who’s income is under $200,000, so if you’re living in Mitt’s America and you have made 175,000 in November, you remove your goods and services from the market place between Thanksgiving and New Year. I actually think this whole thing is populism (a political strategy based on a calculated appeal to the interests or prejudices of ordinary people) and I do not support the merits of progressive taxation on either practical or ethical grounds. Contrast this to President Obama and his diatribe against the millionaires and billionaires, whom he defines as an income level of 250k, nigh unto 40% of total taxes, are paid by 1% of taxpayers. These evil SOB’s aren’t paying their fair share you see. The top 10% pay well over half of the tax bill and those whose income is above 62K which is half the country pay a whopping 96.93% of taxes. The rest of the country the other 66 million people pay 3% of the taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

To clear up one more thing Obama’s argument that Warren Buffet’s secretary pays a higher rate than he does, Buffet’s success is in investments which are taxed as capital gains not income. Capital gains are taxed at 15% so the secretary has to make in excess of 34,500 which is the 25% bracket. Of course no liberal will ever say “Dang that poor woman’s taxes are too high” they say capital gains are suddenly too low, It matters not that investment drives business and thus jobs. To be populist for one moment, its you that will be screwed if capital gains goes up when you sell your home or property, i.e. when you retire and want to move into a smaller place after the kids have grown. Any value added to your home from the time you purchase it until the time you sell is what is taxed by capital gains. We the mob cry out for the government to take the sword of taxation and smite the rich but in the end it is our throat that is cut, for once the rich are smitten where must that sword go next?

The dirty little secret for those who believe in the plan a view of taxation is that raising rates seldom increases revenue to government. While that may sound counterintuitive it is nonetheless true. Pres. Obama knows it too, in one of the few real question asked in the 2008 campaign then Sen. Obama said even though lowering capital gains increases revenue its about fairness. He said so in the Democratic debate in April of 2008. Also remember the famous exchange with Joe the Plumber, “We have to spread the wealth around”. Of course the purpose of lowering taxes, especially business and capital gains is to spur investment and economic growth, the huge bump in revenue associated is an unintended consequence of a broader tax base.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue about taxation is shown in one phrase the President has used from time to time, when he refers to tax breaks as “expenses”. Why this is so disturbing is that the underlying idea has to be that the income of each American belongs to government and that it is up to government to decide what you get to keep. I say we the people decide what we allow the government to have and they must budget accordingly. As a farmer I see the estate tax as the most alarming example of this government arrogance.

So as we battle the dragon in our effort to rescue the fair maiden (a.k.a. the free enterprise system) which of our gallant princes (or princess) has the battle plan and the raw nerve to stand courageous in this fierce battle? Let’s examine each in the harsh light of scrutiny and see who shall be Free Enterprise’s champion.

We shall do so next time.

Keep on the firing line

Taking a stand, Maloney for governor

I want to take a break from the GOP presidential race for a moment and offer my endorsement to Bill Maloney in the WV gubernatorial special election on Tuesday.

In a state where Democrats have been in the majority since time began, (1863 in WV terms) and where to be fair the Dem. Party is not so extreme as they tend to be on a national level, it is encouraging and telling that the governor’s race to fill the void left by Joe Manchin is so close just 2 days before votes are to be cast. Remember, this is the state where the legendary Robert C Byrd occupied the US Senate seat for 50 years. I can guarantee that those who wish to name every public building after the man would never have supported a new comer with the same voting record as Sen. Byrd compiled in the past 10-20 years. West Virginia politics has been dominated by a Democrat cabal as much as has Detroit Michigan, albeit a more benign one. Of course when West Virginians make that hour and a half drive from the eastern panhandle to Washington DC they become socialist hacks willing to sell out every principle and freedom of the voters who sent them there. As proof I offer the voting record of Sen. Jay Rockefeller.

So how do we challenge this cabal? Conventional wisdom is to choose candidates who are “Democratish” and maybe offer the voter a cookie or two more than the opponent. If you will forgive me the narcissism of quoting myself, this is my view of that philosophy.
            Oh for a man of the mushy middle! How my heart yearns for one who can lay aside such divisive concepts as principle and constitutionality and just be civil. What hope is there but for a man willing to smile and compromise as the liberals erode freedom? Where is the leader who will extend a hand to the president and ignore the knives thrust into his, or her, back?

            Are not these the ones who have inspired us throughout history? Was Scotland not unified behind William Wallace’s message of moderate civility?  Was Samuel Adams not famous for his lack of extremist rhetoric? Didn’t Thomas Payne inspire a nation by seeking common ground with the British? Was not the purpose of the first tea party an attempt to compromise with the British on tax policy?  Surely no one like Patrick Henry would have used the inciting words liberty and death in the same sentence. Certainly Abraham Lincoln saved the republic by embracing the slave owners with the stirring refrain “why can’t we all just get along”. Didn’t Reagan inspire the nation by…? I think you get my point. To quote Braveheart’s Wallace “men do not follow titles [or moderates] they follow courage.”   

(5/4/11)

Men of courage are men of consequence and Maloney distinguished himself from a strong Republican primary field with an uncompromising conservative message and a willingness to take a strong stand on moral and social issues as well as economic ones.

This is why I think our little race here in our little state deserves much more attention then it has gotten nationally. Win or loose Maloney has moved conservatism forward in our state and Lord willing will continue to do so as Governor.  

Maloney, like Christine O’Donnell, is up against a steep challenge but I believe its better to fight on principle and loose than to fight on expedience and win. Mike Castle might have won in Delaware but if he did all we would have had was a Republican who often sided with the Dems and gave them bipartisan cover for there far left agenda. Like wise even though the Manchin administration was largely successful and popular in WV in a day where a Democratic President seeks to destroy the coal industry through regulations that are beyond oppressive and where Obama care seeks to redefine the very meaning of individual liberty, we need the courage of conviction of a man like Maloney.

For more info:  http://www.maloneyforwv.com/

Agree or not, don’t forget to vote, men died all over the world to give you that right.

Until next time, keep on the firing line.

Not so fast with the front runner stuff

As of right now you get the impression that it’s all settled between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, not so fast, at the same point in 2008 Rudi Giuliani was the front runner trailed closely by Fred Thompson with John McCain an afterthought.  Perhaps we would have been better if McCain had remained an afterthought, but I digress. The point is, I do not accept that we have to limit our choices to the candidates that the press gives us as front runners.

I have quarrels with Rick Perry, though I have not ruled him out as my choice, I have very serious problems with Mitt Romney as well and I’ll be darned if I will let some God-awful pollster tell me rather I have to choose one of these two or not!

First of all I do not yet have a satisfactory answer from Mitt on Romney-care. He has said correctly that the constitution allows states to screw up the health care system and force odorous mandates on its citizens but does not make the same allowance for the Federal Government. Somehow I find little comfort in the fact that Romney’s only basis for undoing the piece of legislation that transforms America into a land of the formerly free is a technicality? Romney still defends Romney care and if only he had gotten more of what he wanted it would have worked. I’m sorry but that doesn’t do it for me. Romney won’t even denounce the individual mandate which in my humble opinion is the third most immoral thing in the government today, right behind abortion and the death tax. Reagan said about socialized medicine, “   "behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Norman Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism.", "We are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."  I don’t sense that type of commitment from the Romney camp, and it will take a slew of convincing before Mitt Romney will get my primary vote.

Gov. Perry also has some ‘splainin’ to do. How dare you Mr. Governor mandate that my little girl get vaccinated against STD’s? Now he has admitted that the decision to mandate HPV vaccinations in Texas was a mistake, duh! There are things I would go to jail rather than do and this vaccine would have been one of them had I lived in Texas and had the program been implemented. Michelle Bachman was right to call him out on this but in truth I don’t care who profited the important point and the one Gov. Perry has not answered to my satisfaction is  why Gov. Perry believes that government has such a big role to play in what parents do and do not do.

It disturbs me greatly that Gov. Romney seems to have the strongly held views that please his electoral target audience. We need true conservatives not men who will campaign like Reagan and govern like Clinton. This troubles me and before I concede that Romney is viable I want proof of sincerity.

I am also concerned about the Perry position on immigration, specifically the in state tuition policy he supported in Texas. I think it certainly warrants debates as to rather in state tuition rates being extended to the children of  illegal immigrants signifies a support of lawlessness, and if it bespeaks an overall weakness on the broader issue of border security but what infuriates me is the response to criticism that the Governor has decided to pursue. if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. “  further the governor has implied that people who have a problem with this position are uncomfortable with people with different sounding names. So if we disagree with Rick Perry we are hate filled bigots. Governor you were much closer to getting my vote before these asinine comments!

Remember many people voted for McCain because they believed the media twist that he was the only one that could defeat Hillary. Please do not let the media make this decision based on polls and experts claims of electability .my advice keep studying the candidates and choose the one you believe will save this country! We will keep doing that here.

Until next time, Keep on the firing line.

The most important campaign issue no one talks about

I have friends who believe it’s all over, that America has fallen too far into the cesspool of moral decay, that Divine judgment must ensue and that our government is no longer free and that it is too late to do any thing about it. Perhaps some day it would make a fascinating article to explain why I disagree, not that we have wondered from the straight and narrow, but that it’s too late to turn around.  Still even a fool can see that our government has grown far beyond its intended constitutional bounds. Even though we have the most remarkable republic in human history it is important to note that the worst most egregious errors in our history have tended to spring from Judicial Fiat rather than democratic process. In recent years this has been aggravated by the effectiveness of the liberals to block a number of conservative appointees. Most famous was the appointment of Robert Bork by the great Ronald Reagan. Who can forget the mean spirited, hate filled and factually challenged rant by the late Ted Kennedy, “   Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.

The “Liberal Lion” may have been a party hack with no regard for the truth, but he was not dumb. He understood that liberalism cannot win elections it cannot long be maintained through standard legislative process. Its mandates must be imposed by an activist court and its unconstitutional precepts must be upheld by sympathetic adjudicator. Meanwhile Republicans tend to “want to honor the traditions of the Senate” and support even the most radical nominees as a recognition of the will of the people through the election process. In principle I agree with the GOP but in application if only one side blocks nominees than their slant will be dominate in the court for years to come.

When the Republican senate finally grew the nerve to do something about this and proposed a “nuclear option” ending the ability of the left to block President Bush’s nominations to the appeals court, in rode the maverick John McCain to the lefts rescue agreeing with his “gang of 14” to stop the nuclear option in exchange for votes on less than half of the nominations in question. This trend cannot continue, either the libs must be forced to play by the same rules or we have to play by theirs.

This is a critical time, in all the levels of the courts but especially in the Supreme Court where currentky there are 4 rock solid constructionist judges (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito)  dyed iin the wool liberals (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagen, Sotomayor) and one straw blown in the wind in Anthony Kennedy who was a poor substitute for Robert Bork. Further all federal judgeships have an impact on the government of our country and the rights of its citizens. If the trend continues Gay marriage and abortion will continue to be rights while praying at a graduation or hanging the 10 commandments will be criminalized, and government will continue to grow unchecked. However much we like a candidates policies, poor judicial appointments will negate everything else.

Mitt Romney: as with all things the actions of Gov. Romney do not always match the words of candidate Romney. While talking a great game about the dangers of activist judges, 27 of the 36 Massachusetts appointees by Romney were either Democrats or independents including two activist homosexuals. Of course state issues and Federal are not identical and on Gov. Romney’s defense his main concern was the prosecution of crime and that not being soft on the same were his key criteria. Further political party certainly should not be a consideration, it is however one more reason to be very very cautious before throwing support behind Mitt.

Rick Perry: Perry also has a record, which over all is reasonably good, but though some controversy exists over his selection of self described moderate Xavier Rodriguez over conservative Stephen Wayne Smith, who eventually prevailed in the ensuing election. My concern over this is, as when George Bush made the questionable selection of Harriet Meyers as the best woman available rather than the best justice available, was Perry pandering to Latino voters or was Rodriguez really a best choice. Overall though Perry’s record is better than Romney’s.

The rest of the candidates have no record, so we have to rely on stated positions. Here is a list of quotes compiled by:    nla.org/Blogs/blogs/public/archive/2011/06/29/unlike-obama-republican-candidates-would-appoint-impartial-judges.aspx

Michelle Bachmann: “I do not believe the judges should be legislating from the bench. As President of the United States, I would not appoint judges who are activists.” (June 27, 2011).

Herman Cain: “A justice must issue rulings based on the Constitution, not on any political leanings or desires to legislate from the bench.” (February 22, 2011).

Newt Gingrich: “I believe that the justices who believe that their personal view outweighs the voters of their state, the governor and the legislature of their state are fundamentally acting outside the American system.  I think the American system was one of a balance of power.  I think this whole modern – it starts with the Warren Court in 1958, 1959, this whole modern notion of judicial supremacy is false, and I think that that’s going to be one of the major issues in 2012 and beyond is whether you want judges dictating the nature of American or you want judges who accept the law and who have respect for the legislative and executive branches.” (May 25, 2011).

Gary Johnson: “Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited.” (Unknown Date)

).

Ron Paul: “The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society, we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.” (October 5, 2004).

Rick Santorum: “[E]xtreme liberal judges [are] destroying traditional morality, creating a new moral code and prohibiting any dissent…The Supreme Court has become the supreme branch of the government, imposing its unrestrained will on all of the people…The only way to restore this republic our founders envisioned is to elevate honorable jurists like Samuel Alito who want to replace the hubris of this court with humility and respect for the common sense of the American people.” (July 9, 2006).

Until nest time, keep on the firing line

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Last time we began to look at the Republican candidates for President in 2012. I thought it appropriate to begin with a look at the faith of the leading candidates, this week it we will continue this. Certain things have become axioms in American politics, such as the Republican presidential nominee will be pro-life and the Democrat will be pro-choice.  This is easily understood, from the 2008 Republican national platform

 Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

Like wise the Democrat view from that same year:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." "The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions”

If life is determined to begin at conception, then two things are true 1) the protections of the constitution must be extended to the unborn and 2) Roe v Wade is already obsolete. .

 The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157]   for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument

All that legalese means that if the personhood of the child is established the case falls apart. Since 1973 a great deal of medical and scientific knowledge has evolved foremost is DNA no two people have the same DNA and from the moment of conception the fetus and the mother have different DNA. DNA evidence is now clearly well enough established to make this point. This is the first and foremost reason Roe v Wade is obsolete, secondly is the fact that the court does not possess the authority to invent out of whole cloth a brand new constitutional right. Again the decision admits:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.

If the unborn child is human, and as my sainted mother would say, “what else could it be” then the only option is to overturn Roe v Wade, what’s more even a pro-choice believer should support the overturning of this decision if they honor the constitution. How do you justify the Supreme Court taking away the rights of all the people in a state to regulate a medical procedure as they see fit? The first, best option is a constitutional amendment establishing the personhood of the unborn child and establishing once and for all that the protections of “persons” in the constitution apply to all Americans.

The second option would be to overturn Roe v Wade and allow the states, hence the American people decide through their own legislators. Then each state could answer to conscience and creator.

What’s important to our current discussion is where the current crop of candidates stands and how reliable have they been in their records on the topic. As before I will concentrate on the main candidates and will leave out any who are still unannounced.

Mitt Romney:

In October 2002, campaigning for governorship of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would “preserve and protect” a woman’s right to choose. He now describes himself as opposing abortion.

: Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose?

A: I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn’t be involved and let people make their own decision. That all made a lot of sense to me. Then I became governor and the theoretical became reality. A bill came to my desk which related to the preservation of life. I recognized that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human lift. And I didn’t hide from that change of heart. I recognize it’s a change. Every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.

Q: Do you believe life begins at conception?

A: I do. I believe from a political perspective that life begins at conception. I don’t pretend to know, if you will, from a theological standpoint when life begins. I’d committed to the people of Massachusetts that I would not change the laws one way or the other, and I honored that commitment. But each law that was brought to my desk attempted to expand abortion rights and, in each case, I vetoed that effort. I also promoted abstinence education in our schools. I vetoed an effort, for instance, to give young women a morning after pill who did not have prescriptions. So I took action to preserve the sanctity of life. But I did not violate my word, of course.

Mitt Romney is firmly in the “legal but rare camp” camp. Like 2/3 of conservative Republicans, he believes abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is threatened.

Governor Romney changed his mind on abortion. He freely admits it. Ordinary citizens change their minds, and their positions evolve in private. For public figures, however, every video clip and interview is posted somewhere in cyberspace.

From http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm

Michelle Bachmann:

Q: [to Bachmann]: Gov. Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position?

BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, an I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life. Our Declaration of Independence said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is, is on the genuine issue of taking an innocent human life.

Before proceeding let me take on this one question. Rape and incest are the worse things men do in our society, or any other for that matter and to oppose abortion in the very rare cases that it results seems odorous. However if the mother gave up her baby for adoption then decided that she couldn’t sleep at night knowing that a toddler out there somewhere was that rapists “demon seed” so she finds the adoptive mother rips the two year old child from her arms and stabs it in the back of the head with kitchen shears. If one is alright so is the other.

As for Michelle Bachmann, she has a 100% prolife voting record according to Life News and other pro-life groups.

Newt Gingrich: a lot of conservatives like Newt, and during the early part of his speaker ship the country did accomplish wonderful and historic things yet I do not find him a reliable conservative, I find in him a man who speaks and acts like a politician. For instance Newt like all republican candidates loves babies Reagan and the flag, but he is hesitant to support a pro life amendment saying instead that judicial reform is the key (clearly we need both) and then we have a 1995 comment “  I believe most Americans are pro-choice and anti-abortion." If I figure out what that means I could comment, these comments and his endorsement of radical pro abortion Dede Scozzafava over conservative Doug Hoffman in the crucial special election in New York 23d district. You will recall that Scozzafava was the NY establishment republican choice and that Hoffman was on the precipice of victory when Scozzafaza through here support to the Democrat and probably cost the Republicans a key win. Any correspondence seeking campaign support I get from Newt will be sent back with the word Scozzafaza written in big red letters.

Rick Santorum:

Rick Santorum has thus far insisted on putting the social/moral issues in the forefront of his campaign. He has a perfect pro-life voting record. The Santorum’s lost a baby at 20 weeks due to Karen Santorum contracting a severe infection; sadly this was reported as an abortion which was not the case. Still it raises the question of the life and health of the mother and even the most staunchly pro life among us do not support the position that mom has to die if there is a problem. (Among other reasons the baby would die if the mother did). The important point is that health of the mother must not be so loosely defined that it becomes the convenience of the mother.

Herman Cain:

We have no voting record of Herman Cain’s stand but he has been consistent throughout his campaign and personal life.  He did pass on signing the Susan B Anthony pro life pledge; he said “The fourth requirement demands that I 'advance' the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation,” he said.  “I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues.  In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.” I don’t disagree with his interpretation and we certainly do need to reign in the power of the presidency, even though I think this may be a case of splitting hairs. One more quote “Additionally, I would be in favor of any legislation that would encourage adoptions as a loving and safe alternative to abortion. ”

Rick Parry

“Why do legislators hide behind Roe v. Wade claiming it somehow protects babies? We know it doesn’t… Let's let them know that Texas is here and Texas is Pro-Life… We need to strengthen our laws to better defend the defenseless, including a ban on using our tax dollars on abortion procedures in this state.”

Governor Perry has thrown his suppport behind ohio’s heartbeat bill wich would outlaw all abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected. This law is desighned to be the challenge to Roe v Wade.

Ron Paul:

Last time I detailed some of Rep. Paul’s stands as directly related to his faith. Rep Paul said in 1999 “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

I can’t disagree, but as to what to do about it here is a quote from 2007 “The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”  

This would put Rep. Paul squarely in the “plan b” as far as a constitutional amendment I find no specific support from Rep. Paul and he has only a 56% pro-life record according to National Right to Life Committee.

Let me conclude by saying this, every two years we have a crisis of conscience in our home. Shelley Moore Capito is our represrntative and  her voting record on most things is strongly conservative but she is any thing but a strong pro life rep. (though she and Ron Paul have nearly the same NRLC voting record) at one time I was a single issue voter and in a mythical head to head would have supported a pro life Dem like Bart Stupac over a pro choice Rep. regardless of all other issues. Yet it was Capito who held out against Obama care and its massive increase in support for abortion when the prolife democrats proved that in their soul of souls they are Democrats first. So while life is the foremost issue, we need to examine the candidates in all elements of their governing philosophies. 

We will continue to do that next time.

Keep on the firing line. 

Good Men or good laws?

During the Clinton years we heard so much about the separation of private lives vs. job performance. What should we care  what Bill and Monica did in the office where the most important men made the most crucial decisions, where the orders to send thousands and thousands of American troops into harms way was made, where Ronald Reagan would not remove his jacket out of respect? The argument that a man’s personal life is separate from his ability to govern is ridiculous at best, sinister at worst. Seldom if ever in human history have the personal morality and ethical beliefs of a leader not influenced profoundly his ability to govern. It was so in the days of scripture, remember how King David’s discreet little dalliance with Bathsheba nearly wrecked the kingdom, and so it is today. Bill Clinton may not have brought the nation to its knees but we have yet to really learn all the damage done to our national security by the Johnny Chung scandal among others. Character counts.

So as we begin to look into the Presidential candidates for 2012 we should begin by looking at the character of the candidates themselves.  First of all lets be honest, no man is without sin, all have fallen short of the glory of God, so perhaps we should define integrity for the sake of our discussion as a pattern of behavior especially as it relates to matters of honesty and fidelity. If there are any scandals in the past of a Rick Parry or Michelle Bachmann the media will expose those as surely as they will gloss over any of Pres Obama’s questionable associations. Therefore given the fact that the way to destroy an effective conservative is to pile up as many false and exaggerated ethics charges as possible and hope it sticks, we have to be extremely discerning when it comes to media accounts about our candidates. We can see the effectiveness of this strategy which drove Sarah Palin to leave office in Alaska, and bogged down the effectiveness of the Bush administration especially in the second term. This works because we as conservatives do care about integrity and honor; it is amazingly disingenuous of the same media that pooh-poohed the serious scandals of the Clintons yet rail against Sara Palin’s wardrobe purchases

 

As we look into the candidate’s character what are some of the things we should consider? Certainly faith is first, a man’s faith will dictate his views and actions. A great deal of discussion has been given to Mitt Romney’s faith. This is challenging, as a Christian I have deep irreconcilable differences with the Mormon faith, primarily the escalation of the book of Mormon to equality with the scriptures. Likewise did not many of the founders find discomfort in the religious views of Jefferson, a man who doubted the divinity of Christ? Romney like Jefferson is in a broad sense identified with Christianity but should these theological deviations prevent our supporting them? I suppose each of us must decide the final answers on their own. If Gov. Romney’s faith lead him to open immorality or if it lead him to oppose Israel’s statehood I would dismiss him out of hand but that doesn’t seem to be the case, in fact Romney seems to be a moral man and Mormon’s in general are pro Israel.” Romney requested the Arab states to stop providing weapons and financial support to Hezbollah and Hamas and instead to put pressure on the Palestinians to "drop terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist." According to http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/  there fore on faith I cannot dismiss Romney though I would not prefer a candidate who does not share my fundamental views of Christ and the Bible.

 

Other candidates take a more traditional view on faith. A fabulous article about Michelle Bachmann’s views on Christ and the role of faith in her life can be found at http://www.christianpost.com/news/interview-michele-bachmann-opens-up-on-her-faith-and-family-51009/   I personally like how Rep. Bachmann makes no apologies for her faith and is very real and practical about it. I was disturbed that her simple statement about being submissive to her husband became a controversy. My Bible says it too, how far we have fallen to need to be retaught the basic roles of husbands and wives during a presidential campaign. Having a traditional view of marriage is hardly a deterrent to a woman’s ability to achieve all that the Lord intends for her, just as Deborah successfully judged Israel while adhering to God’s law.

 

Rick Perry also had a recent faith based controversy as he held a exclusively Christian prayer vigil as Texas governor. Perry is extremely open about his own faith openly crediting it with his views on many issues. He believes evolution is a hoax (thank God for a politician willing to say so) and recognizes a religious component in the global warming  hoax. In truth Gov Perry sounds a lot like the founders when it comes to his open allegiance with the gospel and its role in his own views.

 

Rick Santorum also credits faith in God and a belief in moral absolutes with many of his views. Santorum has a good record of voting in line with his beliefs.  

Their seems not to be any other controversies directly related to the faith of the other candidates. Herman Cain who frequently speaks with the cadence of a black minister was active in his church long before he considered a run for the presidency and has even cut a gospel album. A quote from him: “The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; He is my God, and I will praise Him; My father's God, and I will exalt Him.”

                                                       ~Exodus 15:2 (NKJV)                                                      

"When my father left his family’s small farm at the age of 18 with just the clothes on his back, he had his belief in God, his belief in himself and his belief in the United States of America. With these beliefs he achieved all of his dreams in life.
"Using those same beliefs, I have been able to achieve many blessings in life with the strength, which comes from God. My family and friends, my church, my success and the opportunity to live in the greatest country in the world are all blessings from God.
"There is more to life than getting more. This is why my song unto Him is to use all my talents to serve my fellow man, and make a difference in the future of our Nation.
"In God we trust expressed the faith of our Founding Fathers. In God I trust is my faith."

Newt Gingrich who converted to Catholicism in 2009 does have a history of affairs and divorce prior to this conversion, though no evidence of such misconduct since. It is up to the voter to decide which is most telling.

 

Ron Paul has said We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have also acted to protect the lives of Americans by my adherence to the doctrine of “just war.” This doctrine, as articulated by Augustine, suggested that war must only be waged as a last resort--- for a discernible moral and public good, with the right intentions, vetted through established legal authorities (a constitutionally required declaration of the Congress), and with a likely probability of success.

I doubt any conservative will take issue with much of Rep Paul’s faith based speech but many of us interpret his “just war” stance differently. Also he has raised many questions with conservatives about his stance on Israel which is anything but diehard. His opposition to hr res34 http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-01-12/ron-paul-on-israel/ implies a dangerous moral equivalence between the Israeli defense forces and the Palestinian terrorists. Pro Israel conservatives should be very wary of supporting Paul even if they agree with him on many other issues.

 

This is a start, I will continue this discussion next time as we will examine rather voting records and political stands echo these statement and how faith effects government philosophy.

Remember good men will make good laws but bad men will not follow a law however good it be.

 

Keep on the firing line