Sunday, November 27, 2011

Russell: Bigot or Not? I Say Not: The Hypocrisy of “Tolerance”

Commentary by Bob Russell, Claremore, Oklahoma: I received an e-mail a few days ago with a story about a lady who owns a bakery in Des Moines, Iowa. She declined to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians, which has resulted in calls for a boycott, and the usual name calling, from homosexual groups. Victoria Childress, owner of Victoria’s Cake Cottage told the couple that she is a Christian and would not violate her Christian beliefs to provide them with a cake. When interviewed about the incident, Ms. Childress said:
“I was straight-forward with them and explained that I’m a Christian and that I have very strong convictions. I chose to be honest about it. They said they appreciated it and left. That was all that was said.”
Childress said her decision had nothing to do with discrimination or the lesbian couple, and stressed this fact by saying:
“It doesn’t have anything to do with them – it was about my convictions. They can get their cake anywhere.”
Childress said money is not the issue, adding:
“I’m being attacked because of my beliefs – my convictions to their lifestyle. I was not rude. I was not condescending. It was matter-of-fact. I told them, ‘I’m sorry, I just can’t do that.’”
The lesbian pair released a statement calling the Christian cake baker a “bigot” and are contemplating filing a discrimination lawsuit against Ms. Childress. More on the discrimination issue later in this piece. The couple ran to the media and started calling a citizen, who I thought had freedom of choice also, a bigot. They threaten legal action, and make a big scene because someone doesn’t want to bake them a wedding cake. How thin skinned can anyone get? They are offended? I am offended that they think they have a right to demand service from any business owner. I am offended that they think a Christian doesn’t have a right to decide who to do business with. If someone doesn’t want my business I just take it elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this reaction is typical of special interest groups, any special interest group. It seems everyone has a “right” to their views, and to be pandered to, except Christians. I wonder what would happen if these same women walked into a bakery owned by a Muslim. Would the owner bake them a cake or chase them out of the shop with a barrage of rocks, or simply hang them for their blasphemy? Stoning, in case you aren’t aware, is one of the penalties for homosexuality in the Muslim world. Hanging also seems to be a popular punishment.

Would these women go screeching to the media about Muslim bias against their “lifestyle”? If they did complain, would anyone make a big fuss or would they just keep out of it for fear of “offending” a Muslim business owner? I hope their next stop is at a bakery owned by a Muslim. I would really like to see the result of that visit. That situation would put the media and all of the “minority” groups in a tizzy. Who would they side with?

Where does this nonsense stop? Why is it that everyone has to bow down to the homosexual lifestyle, or Islam, or the NAACP, or any other “minority” group? Does freedom only apply to those with “issues”? I always thought freedom applies to all of us. Does “diversity” of thought include the thoughts of Christians? Does “diversity” of expression include Christians? Does “freedom of speech” include Christians? Apparently not!!!!!

I am also a Christian who believes homosexuality or heterosexual relations outside of marriage to be wrong. Does being against heterosexual couples living together and engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage make me a bigot also? What does one call that bigotry, heterophobia? Do Christians not have a right to live according to their firmly held religious beliefs? We are certainly expected, by Muslims and many judges and politicians, to allow Muslims to practice their religious beliefs and customs, even the parts that call for stoning of adulterers or honor killings.

Like most other Christians, including Victoria Childress, I don’t condemn others for their lifestyles, I simply disagree with them. Ms. Childress didn’t say anything tawdry about the couple, according to the article. Ms. Childress just expressed her views politely and let it go at that. Also mentioned in the article was a comment from another bakery owner who would be more than happy to bake the cake. Why is this a problem? It isn’t like these two can’t get a cake anywhere, others are happy to have their business.

Read the next couple of paragraphs very carefully and think about the point they make. Find the irrationality of those calling for a boycott of Victoria’s Cake Cottage. As far as a boycott, what will that accomplish? Ms. Childress seems to be boycotting homosexuals, yet that is unlawful according to homosexual activists. Homosexuals are going to boycott a business that doesn’t want their business. Does anyone besides me see the irony in this? I really can’t help but chuckle at this point.

If it is permissible for homosexuals to boycott Victoria’s Cake Cottage why isn’t it permissible for her to boycott homosexuals? Isn’t a boycott a boycott? Shouldn’t this cut both ways? Aren’t these homosexual groups practicing discrimination against Victoria’s Cake Cottage? They claim she is discriminating against them so they turn around and call for a boycott. If they don’t boycott every bakery equally isn’t that the definition of discrimination?

One of the biggest problems faced by this nation today is this very attitude of “tolerance”. We are told we must accept illegal aliens, who have a “right” to be here. We are told we must accept Islam and Sharia Law, because Muslims have “rights”. Christians are told we must accept a lifestyle that goes against our beliefs because these people have “rights”. I find it problematic that the “tolerance boat”, built by Christians who came here looking for freedom of religion, no longer has room for the Christians who built it. What about the rights of Christians to live our lives according to our beliefs? What about our “rights”?

If we are to be a truly tolerant society the tolerance has to go both ways, and it currently does not. If true tolerance were to be enforced, illegal aliens would be required to understand and “tolerate” my views about immigration. In a truly tolerant society homosexuals would be required to “tolerate” the fact that Ms. Childress and I disagree with their lifestyle and would rather they take their business elsewhere. A truly “tolerant” society would say the Congressional Black Caucus is required to admit white members of Congress. Muslims, in a truly “tolerant” society, would be required to accept that America has a Constitution and that Sharia law is unacceptable as it violates nearly every tenet of that Constitution. Muslims would have to “tolerate” our Constitution, and its Judeo-Christian basis, in a truly tolerant society.

If tolerance is not a two way street then it isn’t tolerance it is bullying. Whites are bullied by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on a regular basis. Christians are bullied by CAIR and homosexuals, among other special interest groups. American citizens are bullied by the ACLU, LaRaza and like organizations. Proponents of Right to Work are bullied by unions every day. Tolerance must be equal or it isn’t tolerance. If Victoria Childress and others like her are not allowed to live their lives according to their beliefs then tolerance isn’t anything other than brute force being used against someone these groups disagree with. Isn’t that the definition of bullying? Isn’t that the very thing they are fighting against? Can you spell HYPOCRISY?

I salute Ms. Childress for the way she handled this situation. She was forthright about her stand and refrained from making a big deal out of the situation. She did not “chastise” the couple; she merely chose not to participate in something she finds objectionable. From what I know of this situation she handled herself in a Christian manner with courage and firmness, yet with “tolerance”. She didn’t run to the media, she merely responded with the truth of her beliefs.

I hope that everyone reading this piece will show Ms. Childress their support. If you live in Des Moines or nearby, visit her shop. If not, go to her website and give her words of support. If possible, order something from her bakery and reward her for this stand for freedom of religion. If you live outside of Des Moines order some cookies or something that can be shipped. Let her know you appreciate her courage and her willingness to stand by her values and not be intimidated into surrendering her values or her freedom to live by those values.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

H/T Conservative Daily News which added the following in their post of Russell's Commentary: The first thing the lesbian couple did was run to the news media, where they knew they and their whining and crying, “woe is me”, “I’ve been victimized” story would be coddled.


Tags: Commentary, Bob Russell, ACLU, Al Sharpton, bigotry, CAIR, Christians, Congressional Black Caucus, diversity, freedom of speech, homosexuals, Jesse Jackson, NAACP, tolerance, tolerant, Victoria's Cake Cottage, Wedding Cake To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Monday, November 21, 2011

Obama's Brand of Socialism: Nanny-State Socialism

The Bust Of Winston Churchill was removed
by President Obama from the Oval Office
and returned to UK Ambassador
By Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski (ARRA News Service Contributing Authors): Governor Rick Perry called President Barack Obama a socialist who also loves his country. Those who support Western European-style socialist policies don’t understand the power of private markets, or government’s inefficiency and incompetence.

Answering a question from Bill O’Reilly, Governor Perry created a buzz by responding that President Obama is a socialist, though was quick to add that the president loves his country and simply doesn’t understand how America’s market-based economy works. If the president understood the private sector, Governor Perry explained, he wouldn’t pursue tax and regulatory policies that crush job-creators and prevent wealth creation.

There are two types of socialism. One is authoritarian socialism seen in the Eastern Bloc countries (many of which are now free-market economies) and some nations in Central and South America. It’s used by harsh and oppressive authoritarian regimes that repress their people.

The other type of socialism is a big-government philosophy that uses wealth redistribution to fund a massive nanny state of cradle-to-grave entitlements. We see this type of socialism in many Western European and Mediterranean countries that are friends and allies of our country, such as Spain, Italy, France, and Greece.

Governor Perry was referring to this Western-European socialism. President Obama believes that government has all the answers if led by enlightened leaders (as he fancies himself), and believes he will improve everyone's lot. Perry referenced Obama’s infamous exchange with Joe the Plumber, where Obama infamously said when government spreads the wealth it’s better for everyone.

The term “socialism” is misunderstood by many, and the Left spins it as if calling someone a socialist is a personal attack. They do this to avoid serious discussion of socialism’s impact.

There are two components to socialism. It’s a philosophy that government owes to everyone in society a certain standard of living. It includes government-provided or subsidized food, housing, education, and healthcare.

Socialism provides entitlements through massive taxation, and also believes that heavy government regulation leads to a better society. It does all this in the name of “social justice.”

No honest person can deny that President Obama’s policies fit these criteria. Government-run healthcare (and calling it a fundamental right, despite the fact that it’s nowhere mentioned in the Constitution). Federal control of education. Government picking winners and losers in the economy.

History repeatedly shows that free markets work over time, and socialism does not. But we don’t need to plumb the depths of world history. We have our own recent history.

Since Obamacare, employers have reported that they will have to drop insurance policies covering tens of millions of Americans, and Medicaid spending will increase by $434 billion by 2020.

After (partially) bailing out the housing market, housing remains a depressed and failing sector, and Fannie and Freddie have the gall to ask for $6 billion is additional taxpayer money while paying $13 million in bonuses to their executives.
And this administration deludes itself that it knows how to invest in business. So it gives $535 million in loan guarantees to Solyndra as a good investment, only to see the company promptly go bankrupt. Just for good measure the energy secretary illegally restructured this scam to pay off President Obama’s fundraisers and stick you with the bill.

Arrogance and incompetence are a toxic combination. This White House and its cronies are overflowing with both. So Governor Perry argues that America needs someone new in the White House.
---------------
J. Ken Blackwell is a conservative family values advocate. Blackwell is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law.

Kenneth Klukowski is a fellow at the Family Research Council and at Liberty University School of Law,and a columnist for the Washington Examiner. They are the coauthors of “Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America.”


Tags: Barack Obama, Socialism, Nanny-State Socialism, Rick Perry, Ken Blackwell, Ken Klukowski, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Friday, November 18, 2011

99% Democrat - - 99% in America? REALLY??!!

by A.F. "Tony" Branco
H/T ARRA News Service: -- The following article by "donhays" says what many believe but haven't put in words. I don't know the author, but I owe him his favorite beverage if we ever meet:

Ninety-Nine Percent in America? REALLY??!!
. . . speaking of morons . . .

I am conflicted every time I see coverage of these Occupy schlubs. On one hand, like anyone who has actually earned a paycheck, I would like to see most of the them told that they are too old for the sandbox – time to go get a job. On the other hand, I jump for joy over the fact that these morons have no clue that they have royally over-stayed their welcome; and that even their most staunch supports’ patience is wearing thin.

But as a person with the heart of a teacher, I really want them to grip how silly their premise is…. Actually, I just don’t want anyone else drinking that kool-aid. My question is this:

“How can the 1% REALLY lord it over the other 99% in a democratic republic?”

SHORT VERSION: They can’t. Thanks for playing, have a safe trip back home (to your parent’s basement)

LONG VERSION: Listening to your Bolshevik teachers (who, by the way, said in their youth, “never trust anyone over 30″…. and now they are your professors) you would think that the evil capitalists have been holding down the hoi-polloi since those white dudes in wigs forced out the peace loving British who only want to spread the wealth around (back to England of course). And it got worse from there! As the centuries past, the unwashed masses grunted along to the tune of “Look Down” from Les Miserables, being forced by those mean Republicans to accept slavery, Jim Crow Laws, Poll taxes, grandfather clauses…. oh wait…. that’s right, it WASN’T the Republican that did that. Wanna take a guess at which party that was?

Generation after generation, the 99% stood there and took it, until finally (cue the Halleluiah Chorus) kids barely out of diapers came running down to Zuccotti Park, dragging their massive craniums behind them to solve the unsolvable, cure the incurable, to DREAM… the IM-POSS-I-BLE….. you get the picture.

They, inspired by their “fundamentally transform American President” (erk… had to fight off some GERD there), have solved society’s problems by occupying a private park, taking dumps on cop cars, practically driving the MIDDLE CLASS vendors in the area out of business (fat cats order in during an occupation, check the manual) and of course, changed western civilization as we know it by coming up with call and response phrases like, “this is what democracy looks like!” – which with the cerebral skill of a parrot, the rest of the crowd repeats… over and over and over and over…

Ya know what? That IS what democracy looks like! Tell ya what, I’ll get back to that in a minute.

SO…. if this has always been the condition of America, then why hasn’t it been fixed?! HMMMM?!!! If it really has been 99% versus 1%…… in a representative republic – then why are we just NOW getting to the problem? Why wasn’t it fixed 100 years ago when Mr. Smith really could go to Washington? How about 435 Mr. Smith’s in the house…. or I suppose if the OWS stats are correct, it would be 430-5? Well?? And the Senate? Hey, back then I bet you could have pulled 100% given that Senators were elected by state legislatures, who I am just sure were made up of purely 99%ers.. Right??

During the Great Depression? FD who? Who needs a President when you’ve got 430-5 and 99-1, right?!! I am sure you could’ve had some wealth spreadage back then? WELL????

Want to know why??.. Uh oh, here it comes….

BECAUSE IT ISN’T 99% VS 1% IN THIS COUNTRY!!! Nine out of every 10 of the 1% in America (statistically is families and businesses making $350,000 or more per year) are FIRST GENERATION RICH! Meaning that they started somewhere other than Richville. AND most of the so-called rich (tell someone living in downtown Manhattan and ONLY making 350k per year they are rich) from 30 years ago have cycled OUT of Richville and have been replaced by new 1%ers. In other words, there is no LOCK on wealth in this country other that the fact that it takes a huge amount of blood, sweat, tears and TIME!! The ‘microwave generation’ (I want it now, now, now!!) doesn’t grip that.

Oh, and getting back to what democracy looks like? Yep, that what it looks like alright – a mob that shares space, food, braincells, joints and other things I can’t mention. It is exactly the reason why our framers did NOT give us a democracy, but a republic. If the “take up oxygen” crown would have gripped that back in civics class, they probably wouldn’t be fertilizing Zuccotti Park the way they have been doing. Then again, if they would have paid attention in econ class, they would be working on getting to the other side of the glass on Wall Street.

Tags: democrat, Occupy Wall Street, OWS, OWS protesters, 99%, A.F. Branco, political cartoon, donhays, America, Conservative Daily News To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Racism And Hypocrisy Are Alive and Well In Our Nation

Political Cartoon by A.F. "Tony" Branco
Open Letter From Bob Russell:
As we head into another Presidential election cycle, racism has once again becoming front and center in the focus of American political discourse. Unfortunately racism, and the hypocrisy that goes with it, is indeed alive and well in our nation today, 146 years after the Civil War ended and 46 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. It saddens me to see that some in this country have not progressed any further along the road to acceptance of race as a non-factor in life.

If you don’t believe racism is real, just look at the media treatment of Herman Cain. Like him or not, agree with his policies or not, Herman Cain is an authentic American who happens to be black. He is not a hyphenated American; he is an American, period. When I say he is an authentic American I mean that he believes in the Constitution and the values that have made this country great. When I say authentically black, I mean both of his parents are black.

The same media knotheads, who call me a racist because I oppose the policies of Barack Obama, publicly call Herman Cain names like “token negro”, “Oreo cookie”, “bad apple”, “Uncle Tom”, “a black man who knows his place”, and accuse him of “smoking a symbolic crack pipe”, “currying white favor”, and the like- things that I would never dream of saying. Some of these self-absorbed, pretentious “journalists” and commentators are white and some are black, but none of them have a clue what main stream America is about.

Where were these kinds of references in 2007 and 2008? Barack Obama received an awful lot of the white votes. Why were these kinds of comments not made when he was receiving so much support from the white community? You didn’t hear conservatives uttering such tripe; and these same “journalists” and commentators fawned over Obama like he was a god. Conservatives talked about Marxism and socialism running for the White House, not the “house negro”.

Why is Obama, whose mother was white, blacker than Cain, whose parents are both black? Could it be because Cain is a conservative, the worst thing in life a “person of color” can be? I have heard black people and white people, all of them liberals by the way, call Cain vile names that I would never call him, or any other person, regardless of the color of their skin. Obama is of mixed race, Cain is of pure race, yet Cain is the one who is “not black enough”. That is an interesting concept; not a sensible one, but an interesting one, none the less.

Karen Finney, a Democrat “strategist” appearing with Martin Bashir on MSNBC, said that Herman Cain is “a black man who knows his place” and therefore is acceptable to the TEA Party and makes them “feel like they are not racist because they like this guy”. Bashir’s response is “thank you for spelling that out”.

Does anyone else find this as vile and ridiculous as I find it? Has anyone ever heard a TEA Party person make such an asinine
statement? No, I didn’t think so. Lloyd Marcus seems to be accepted at TEA Party events, as are any other “people of color”, who believe in liberty, justice, and the American Way.

Does anyone remember the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings? Thomas referred to the attacks on him as a high-tech lynching. It wasn’t conservative Republicans who trashed Clarence Thomas, it was liberals, Democrats, both black and white, but all of them liberals who are supposedly consumed with “racial equality”. Thomas was ridiculed because his wife is white, not by conservatives, but by liberals. And who could ever doubt the “Reverend” Al Sharpton when he tells us that Cain is not an “authentic black man” because he doesn’t espouse the “oh woe is me” attitude that only government can provide for success in the black community. Cain isn’t being reviled by conservatives but by liberals. We “conservative TEA Party racist types” accept Herman Cain but liberals don’t. Hmmm, curious, this race question.

When a liberal calls me a racist because of my stand for freedom and against the Obama, Reid, Pelosi brand of Marxism, I count it as a compliment. I know I am not a racist and so do they. The key is that they know they have nothing else to stand on so they try the age-old intimidation tactic of name calling. Well, it just doesn’t work any longer. We, the supposed racists, have wised up, and now ignore this tactic. We are no longer intimidated by name calling.

The true racists in the country are those telling American citizens ”of color” that they cannot accomplish anything on their own, that the only way for them to have anything is to hold their hand out to liberal white folks who know what is in their best interests. Or they can hold their hand out to “Reverend” Al Sharpton or “Reverend” Jesse Jackson, who will go to their white liberal overseers and ask for “alms for their poor black folks”. Just as a side note, I consider myself a “person of color” also. As far as I know white is still a color, and actually, except for my beard, I am more beige than white.

Have you noticed that the pundits and mouthpieces for racism, black or white, seem to be doing just fine, financially, in the pundit world? And how do the “Justice Brothers”, Al and Jesse, make their money? Do they actually have churches they pastor or do they make their money pandering to white liberal guilt, the government, and telling black Americans that they are less than whites? I surmise that the “Justice Brothers” make their money extorting money from anyone they can find to extort money from. If one doesn’t give them money it must be because one is racist. It can’t possibly be because one believes they are “race hustling poverty pimps”.

And before anyone labels me a racist on that last statement, it is a quote from J. C. Watts, a former Oklahoma Republican Congressman and quarterback at the University of Oklahoma. He made that statement on the floor of the House of Representatives in speaking of “Reverend” Jackson. He must also be a racist in the books of “Reverends” Al and Jesse, and apparently another “house negro telling whites what they want to hear”.

I never tell anyone they can’t make it on their own. I never tell anyone of any color that the answer to their problems is a government hand out, that they are too stupid to succeed, or they are incapable of making a success of themselves. Is the key to success in our nation really a government handout or is it hard work, honesty, integrity, and dedication?

Racism is alive and well in the liberal sections of society. Conservatism says hard work and dedication will bring success, without ever bringing skin color into the mix. Herman Cain worked his way through college. His parents worked at least 2 jobs each when he was young so they could help their children get the education they would need to become successful in life. They didn’t sit back and wait for Al and Jesse to bring them a handout to keep them in line and in poverty. Cain’s parents had a vision of what it takes to succeed in life and they instilled that in their children.

Herman Cain has been successful because he understands how to be successful. He has worked his way up to where he is today through education, dedication to values, and the willingness to apply himself to accomplish the tasks assigned by those above him in authority. He wasn’t content to sit on his butt and wait for Al and Jesse to hand him the pittance they normally hand their dependants. I believe the key to his success as much as anything else is his treatment of others. He is as considerate and respectful of the doorman at a hotel as he is to a CEO of any corporation.

To say in 2011 that Herman Cain has succeeded because he is the “house negro” of the TEA Party and conservative Americans is insulting to all Americans of all colors. It shows where racism dwells and it isn’t in conservative circles. This treatment of Cain shows once again that “people of color” who don’t tow the liberal line will be subjected to attacks of all kinds to keep them in line. For anyone to say that any “person of color” cannot succeed by their own initiative in today’s America is as racist as one can get.

Many Americans, including this writer, oppose Barack Obama because of his Marxist policies and his promise to “fundamentally transform America”. We are called racists and bigots because no one can really oppose his “enlightenment”; it absolutely has to be racism. I am not in Cain’s camp but I do respect and like the man based on his accomplishments and his vision for America.

Neither Cain nor Obama have any standing with me, for better or worse, due to the color of their skin. My opinions of both are based entirely on their policies and their vision of the future of the nation I cherish. I find it rather odd that the people who support Obama are not racists but those who oppose him are racists. And those who support Herman Cain are racists but those who oppose him are not racists. I am like the duck in the AFLAC commercial shaking my head and going, HUH?????????????????

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
November 4, 2011

Tags: racism, Racist, Bill Maher, Liberal propaganda, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, A.F. Branco, political cartoon, Open Letter, Bob Russell, Okalhoma, racism, hypocrisy To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Monday, November 14, 2011

Continual Obfuscation By The Democrats And The White House

The below letter to the editor is by Robert "Bob" McDowell, Jr. He is a Professional Engineer and Geologist with over 50 years experience in creating drilling prospects, supervising drilling, well completion, production operation, and pipeline design for oil and gas including repair of problem wells. McDowell is a conservative and active in the Oklahoma Republican Assembly.

Bob McDowell
By Bob McDowell: As this is written, there is a "super committee" of the Congress which is composed of six Democrats, three each from the House and the Senate and six Republicans, again three each from the House and Senate which have been charged with developing a bill that will achieve a reduction of the ongoing deficit of over one TRILLION dollars.  The committee is required to have a proposal ready for a 'non amendable' vote by November 23, the day before Thanksgiving.  It is my opinion that they will not succeed, at least with something that is acceptable to the general public, and non-painful to the elderly or veterans in the population.  This approach is blatantly unconstitutional because it renders the rest of the population non-represented.

For one thing, those appointed by the Democrat caucuses appear to be the most intractable and 'big spending, high taxing' members of their respective houses.  They are, or appear to be from the various reports coming out, taking the route of "it is our way of more taxes and cuts in 'benefits' to those receiving earned payments or no deal'.  If successful in this course of action, it would probably be on their agenda to mount a massive media campaign to blame the Republican members for not being willing to "negotiate."

To their credit, they do tend to stick tightly to their agenda, whereas too many of those with an "R" behind their name seem to be willing to cave in and bend their avowed principles in order to appear to be willing to compromise.  That is not the way that you deal with those on the Socialist/Communist side of the fence.  It appears that the truth is not to be heard from them in these matters.  Those seen by me on live TV have stood on the podium of their respective house and bold faced lied about things that, in some cases, there was first hand information known to me on the subject.  Of course, to be charitable, one needs to admit that in some cases they may just be misinformed, or completely uninformed, in which case they cannot be considered to be liars.  Be that as it may, they seem to be 'mean mouthed' in that they continue to call their opponents rather nasty and derogatory names, especially when their position cannot be backed up by logic and/or facts.  Actually, it is no wonder to me that theCongress, as a whole, is held in such low regard according to polling data.

It seems that whenever there is a need to reduce expenses, at any level of government, the first thing the officials, whether elected, appointed, or employed, loudly propose is cuts in the level of services that will serve to have the most effect on the population.  We should remember that it is the taxes we pay, whether directly or indirectly, that pays the salaries and expenses of the luxurious lifestyles enjoyed by these 'servants'.  It seems that it would never occur to the majority of them to begin by reducing the enormous numbers of employees, particularly in those departments that have as their agenda the establishing of 'rules' with the force of law that most adversely affect our personal and business lives and operations.

President Obama and his administrators are continually pontificating about the need to 'create jobs' while at the same time creating more rules each day that serve to drive up the costs of doing business so that employers are afraid to expand and hire more workers.  These people, for the most part, have never worked in private business and thus have no concept, if they cared, of what is needed in the regulatory climate for business management to feel secure enough about the future operating conditions to be willing to take the risks of expansion.

What is needed is a massive reduction in the number of government employees who do nothing but dream up these rules that stifle the business of the Nation.

Tags: Bob McDowell, Oklahoma, letter to editor, Continual Obfuscation, US Congress, Super Committee, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

by Patrick L. Booth, The Blue Eye View: Why does socialism continue to appeal to progressives, democrats, and those who cannot provide for themselves? Do modern socialists not recall the reeking stench of communism practiced in Russia, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and too many other countries? Socialists claim communism and socialism are not the same thing and that socialism has never been given a fair chance. Of course, that is patented bull crap but an inordinate number of students and their college professors accept it as truth writ large. All the above countries practice SOCIALISM.

The results of such hubris are all to easy to see and demonstrate with track records of boastful belligerence, surly truculence, and outright incompetence. All socialist countries are mired in poverty, indifference, and are run by tyrants. They can't get it right because there is no right to be gotten in their political philosophies.

Indisputably, all those countries practice wholesale murder of their citizens. Today's socialists always say, "Many other countries also practice widespread killings." True enough. But none even approach the numbers of murders that communist countries do. Socialism reduces citizens to whores and lackeys; do as told or die.

Socialism is the pursuit of sheer, raw, power over other human beings. Of course, its adherents claim the moral high ground saying equality of rights, income, and labor are the goals but history and modern practices belie the claims. The triumph of evil over good, emotion over reason, and man's infinite capacity for self-delusion always wins.

No amount of malevolent empirical evidence has dissuaded new generations from the siren song of "EQUALITY." Despite all the historical evidence of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and other "Peoples Republics", socialists walk amongst us, even openly in our halls of congress. The deeply flawed "labor theory of value" positing equal intrinsic values of all labor and production captures their petty minds rather than the truth of economically established values of costs per product. A (labor) + B (materials) = product. Product + desire = sale = monetary value.

Capitalists built decent, moral, and humane societies on what socialists consider amoral approaches to economics but socialists built exploitative, inhumane, amoral societies upon inflamed approaches to humanity and economics where no equality exists. The two approaches are antithetical.

Socialism is based entirely upon a fundamental misreading of human nature, the willing suspension of belief in the nature of mankind. Fact: mankind is selfish. Self-preservation, self-interest, and personal comfort take precedence over everything else.

Capitalism wisely exploits and cares for those traits allowing for choice in self-emulation, charity, morality, and the good of society. Socialism is intellectually narrow, irrational, dependent upon self-deprecation and immolation that scarcely exists outside of religious societies (which are not allowed to exist since such societies compete with the state for allegiance). Socialism exists behind a mask of a "charitable impulse" which is forced but which capitalism openly, willingly and ably promotes. Charity forced is not charity. It is tyranny.

Christianity, with all its moral, charitable, and self-improving characteristics, cannot exist in Socialist States which demand total allegiance of mind, body, and existence or death of the non-conformist. Hence, China has an "Official Christian Church" which denies Christ.

All communist countries have "economic plans" run by the state for the benefit of the "state." Is there any difference in Obama's "plan" which promotes the "state" over individuals' benefits. Its top-down approach must inevitably fail as all other socialist plans have failed.

Fallible man cannot ever entirely understand nor tame all social economic forces as no individual has large enough an intellect nor capacity to absorb nor control all the variables of economics. The cultish fervor with which Socialists continue to believe mankind can create all-encompassing fairness is inevitably doomed equating to stupidity.

Obamacare is socialism in its intent, practice, and forced outcome. It cannot but fail. Those moronic Dem Socialists who wrote it, passed it though the house and senate, and are trying ever so hard to implement it must be removed from office if for no other reasons than they are simply too stupid to be allowed to continue. We cannot afford to accept such corrupt, failed policies. To do so is to accept our nation's utter destruction; Obama's "Change" will be complete.

Tags: socialism, evil, modern slavery, Obamacare, Pat Booth To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Taking Executive Orders Too Far

ARRA News Service - Editor's Note: The running of this article is not an endorsement of Rep. Ron Paul as a candidate for President. Which can also be said for articles run on occasion by elected and non-elected officials who are also candidates for presidents. Having said the above does not diminish the need to head the words of in Rep. Ron Paul's article on presidential executive orders.

Rep. Ron Paul
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX-Dist. 14): These are frustrating times for the President. Having been swept into office with a seemingly strong mandate, he enjoyed a Congress controlled by members of his own party for the first two years of his term. However, midterm elections brought gridlock and a close division of power between the two parties. With a crucial re-election campaign coming up, there is desperation in the president’s desire to "do something" in spite of his severely weakened mandate.

Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system. It was designed that way. The drafters of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction. Hopefully, this means actions taken by the government are necessary and proper. If federal laws or executive actions can’t be agreed upon constitutionally- which is to say legally- such laws or actions should be rejected.

The vision of the founders was to set up a government that would remain small and unobtrusive via a system of checks and balances. That it has taken our government so long to get this big speaks well of the original design. The founders also knew the overwhelming nature of governments was to amass power and grow. The Constitution was to serve as the brakes on the freight train of government.

But the Obama administration, like so many administrations in the 20th century, chooses to ignore the Constitution entirely. The increasingly broad use and scope of the Executive Orders is a prime example. Executive Orders are meant to be a way for the president to direct executive agencies on the implementation of congressionally approved legislation. It has become increasingly common for them to be misused in ways that are contradictory to congressional intent, or to bypass Congress altogether in enacting political agendas. The current administration has unabashedly stated that Congress's unwillingness to pass the president's jobs bill means that the president will act unilaterally to enact provisions of it piecemeal through Executive Order. Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship.

Of course, the most dangerous and costly overstepping of executive authority is going to war without a congressional declaration. Congress has been sadly complicit in this usurpation by ceding much of its war-making authority to the executive because it wants to avoid taking responsibility for major war decisions, but that is part of our job in Congress! If the President cannot present to Congress and the people a convincingly strong case for going to war, then perhaps we should keep the nation at peace, rather than risk our men and women's lives for ill-defined reasons!

This administration certainly was not the first to behave in ways that have defied the Constitution to overstep its bounds. Sadly, previous administrations have set precedents that the current administration is only building upon. It is time for Congress to reassert itself and its constitutional role so that future administrations cannot continue on this dangerous path.

Tags: POTUS, president, executive orders, Ron Paul, warnings To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

October Surprise: Can Gold Be The Panama Canal Treaty Of 2012?

Image via Wikipedia
by Ralph Benko: Superpollster Scott Rasmussen has pulled the pin and rolled one of his patented hand grenades under the chair of the Political Class. Rasmussen’s “October Surprise” is contained in a recent poll showing 44% of likely voters favor returning to the gold standard, 28% opposed. That intensifies. If the public knew that it would “dramatically reduce the powers of bankers and the political class to steer the economy” support goes up to 57%. Opposition drops to 19%.

Reducing the power of bankers and the political class — along with gold’s empirical record of turbo-charging job-creation and economic growth — is core for gold’s proponents. Thus, that inevitably will become public knowledge and make gold a potentially huge electoral asset.

And there’s more. Rasmussen’s results show that 79% of Tea Party voters (and 69% of simply self-described Republicans) would favor such an elitism-constraining gold standard.  The only solid majority opposition comes, unsurprisingly, from self-described members of the political class.  If anybody picks up on this dynamic it could prove decisive in what remains a remarkably fluid field with early contests fast approaching.

Rasmussen’s numbers strongly suggest gold is an electoral jet stream.  Fly with it and enjoy the tailwind; into it and suffer from headwinds.  More than this, Rasmussen may have uncovered a potential “Panama Canal Treaty”- scale issue for 2012. Ronald Reagan, noting audience enthusiasm, elevated what had been a throwaway line criticizing the surrender of the canal back to Panama into a major campaign theme. Others aspirants disdained it, giving Reagan a critical edge to, eventually, a hard fought victory.

Herman Cain and Ron Paul both are on record as supporting the gold standard.& Both are doing surprisingly well given their respective improbabilities, notwithstanding having handled the gold issue with extreme gingerness. It can be argued that they have benefited, at least partially, from gold’s “tailwind.”

Gov. Rick Perry’s initial strong showing correlated with his well-publicized critique of Ben Bernanke.  Gold’s tailwind effect? Newt Gingrich’s climb into third place became more noticeable around the time of his widely noted call for “hard money with a very limited Federal Reserve” – a comment widely noticed and interpreted as Gingrich dipping into the waters of gold. More gold tailwind?

Mitt Romney has not engaged the gold standard issue, flying outside it and making it, so far, a nonfactor. It would be uncharacteristically reckless for him to repudiate something this popular. This smart, careful, technocrat also seems unlikely to do something as unconventional as to embrace a dollar as good as gold.  But … if he doesn’t like the feeling of Herman Cain’s or Newt Gingrich’s hot breath on his neck there might well be nothing better than a road paved with gold to gain a foothold in Iowa.  There, last summer, a famous Iowa Tea Party Bus Tour, sponsored by American Principles in Action (in which this writer participated) took the gold standard to 22 towns — to receptive audiences.

Cain has done a certain amount of equivocating on his position in favor of the gold standard.  He’s on record as for it, but now under the vaguer formulation that a dollar should be a dollar (as “a rose is a rose is a rose”), but makes demonstrably preposterous claims that a balanced budget is the means to, rather than the outcome of, a stable dollar. That’s exactly backwards and is reminiscent of the 1970s old guard Republicans who held tax cuts hostage to a balanced budget … and who lost to Reagan.

Rep. Paul has the longest track record as favoring the gold standard, yet has refused to campaign on it. For a man of Dr. Paul’s magnificent integrity that’s tantamount to saying that, if elected, gold does not have a place in his already ambitious stated agenda. So…those with the best claim on gold have left it unguarded and vulnerable to a shrewd claim jumper.

Romney and Cain are tied for first.  Frontrunners tend to succumb to caution.  So what about Perry and Gingrich?  Having already, arguably, felt the heady effect of the tailwind from fighting funny money Perry may have developed a feel for the money issue.  Now… add Steve Forbes’s endorsement. Perry quickly embraced the flat tax — a signature Forbes issue. Steve Forbes has not one but two signature issues.  Forbes made worldwide headlines, recently, with his prediction that we would have the gold standard within 5 years, a very good thing.

Tax cuts, apart from Cain’s controversial 9-9-9, have not differentiated the contenders dramatically. All Republicans are campaigning against tax increases and campaigning for rate cuts. Perry is well positioned, with Forbes’s help, to bring the gold standard, and the elimination of federal taxes on gold to allow people to construct their own golden parachutes out of the deteriorating greenback, to the fore. Will Perry, in for a penny with the flat tax, go in for a pound…with gold?

Meanwhile Gingrich, playing the “tortoise” in this race has pulled ahead of Perry and into third place in the two most recent polls — Fox and CBS News/NY Times. And Gingrich is a famously shrewd strategist—and interpreter of polls. Gingrich is well equipped to register the full implications of Rasmussen’s October Surprise – maybe even this cycle’s version of the Panama Canal Treaty — and to exploit it.

Whoever digs down into the crosstabs will discover another electorally important fact.  The gold standard, potentially key to energizing caucus and primary voters, is an asset for the general. This isn’t a desperate primary season expedient which can return to haunt. Rasmussen: “The majority of voters across nearly all demographic groups favor the gold standard if it would dramatically reduce the power of central bankers and political leaders over the economy.”  A majority of African Americans, most of them enthusiastically, support the gold standard.  A majority of Union members (including this columnist, a member of the AFL-CIO) support the gold standard too.

Gold splits the Democrats’ base There are two major elements of the left. One is made up of elitist, doctrinaire, souls such as Paul Krugman. These are almost all white males of the privileged class: its patriarchy. These, the left’s nomenklatura, almost all ridicule gold. They also, not surprisingly, are a minuscule minority…even of the left.

The nomenklatura have the prestigious platforms –- media, academic perches, money, prestige awards. But they don’t have the votes. Most of the left is made up of humanitarian populists, such as organized labor and ethnics who comprise the “social democratic” left. They are far more concerned about jobs, opportunity, and policies of “rising tide” prosperity than with arcane (and dubious) neo-Keynesian dogma. These — as the Occupy movement is telling us loudly with its many calls for the gold standard — and as Rasmussen now has quantified in his October Surprise — strongly tend to favor gold.  The ethnic and labor left leadership is more attuned to the mood of their own, pro-gold, rank and file than are the patrician nomenklatura.

Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Obama adopted the kind of economic policies designed to create a robust economy and the jobs that come with that.  The Republicans for years have been calling (correctly so) for tax rate cuts and the Democrats have grudgingly gone along, but the jobs do not come.  Why not? As compellingly pointed out by Forbes.com’s own John Tamny: the villain is rotten monetary policy.

The gold standard is the, well, gold standard of monetary policy.  As noted enthusiastically by The New York Sun and by my colleague Rich Danker in Forbes.com a recipe for how to get there has been laid upon the table by Lewis Lehrman, chairman of the Lehrman Institute (whose website this columnist edits).

Will one or more of the GOP candidates read Rasmussen’s report, parse the implications, consult the gold standard experts, and upset this race? Many gold standard savants are being snapped up: Forbes, now a Perry advisor; Jim Grant, Ron Paul’s announced pick for Fed Chairman; Forbes.com columnist and my co-author of a booklet on the gold standard, Charles Kadlec, a Herman Cain advisor. World-class gold cognoscenti remain, at last report, unpledged, including Lehrman, Sean Fieler (investor and philanthropist who chairs the nonprofit pro-gold American Principles Project which this columnist advises professionally), Atlas Foundation’s Judy Shelton and Professor (and Forbes.com columnist) Brian Domitrovic, among them.  The intellectual infrastructure for gold – the knowhow — is there.

If the candidates take notice Scott Rasmussen, bless his subversive little heart, may have changed the course of this race…and of history. Gold presents as the most powerful unexploited economic issue waiting to enter, and alter, this presidential election cycle.
------------
Ralph Benko is senior advisor, economics, to American Principles in Action’s Gold Standard 2012 Initiative, a lead participant in the Iowa Tea Party’s upcoming Bus Tour. He co-led the gold standard breakout session at the Tea Party Patriots’ American Summit and is the editor of the Lehrman Institute’s The Gold Standard Now This article which first appeared in Forbes was submitted to the Conservative Voices editor for reprint by the author. Ralph Benko is also a contributing author at the ARRA News Service.

Tags: Ralph Benko, Gold, ,Panama Canal Treaty, 2012 To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!