Tag Archives: Conservatism

Overspending: Individuals vs Government

Posted by Tim on

Let’s suppose for a minute that there is a man named Jim. Jim is an accountant at a bank and earns right around $40,000 a year – an income that he uses to provide a house for himself, as well as food, clothing, and a little entertainment here and there. But Jim has a spending problem. He recently bought a $100,000 Lexus SUV, a new Sony flat screen TV, and every weekend (and some weekday afternoons) he spends hundreds of dollars at the local strip club. Jim, despite earning enough money to live a reasonable life, is now in debt. Deep in debt.

In fact, Jim is so deep in debt that his credit card debt alone is more than his annual income of $40,000! That’s not counting all the other debt he’s built up – car loan, house loan, unpaid student loans. Sounds like Jim needs to stop spending, right? WRONG! Jim isn’t at fault. It’s the fault of his employer for not paying him enough.

That is the kind of situation we have right now with the US federal government. The big spenders in Washington refuse to admit that they might have problem living within their means. Instead, they blame the American people for not paying enough in taxes. They don’t spend too much; you just don’t pay enough! Its an absurd notion when you break it down to an individual level and use “Jim” as an analogy. But its actually worse than that – here’s why.

Jim doesn’t have the ability to spend his employer’s money before he’s earned it. Jim can put himself in debt, but he can’t put his employer, much less his employer’s children, in debt. And when Jim eventually files for bankruptcy, only Jim is hurt – not his employer. Who is the employer of the federal government? That’s right – we are. The citizens of the US are the employers of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, and right now those politicians and bureaucrats are putting the debt on us. And it gets worse.

Not only are we in debt, but it will be harder and harder to pay it off. Jim doesn’t have the power to devalue his employer’s money. He can’t go out and print more, then spend it, and come back 10 years later with $1 being worth $.90! But that is exactly what our government is doing right now. Not only are we in debt – so much that we won’t pay it off in our lifetime and it will be left for our children – but our dollars will be worth less and less because of uncontrolled printing of money.

It is a sickening thought, and its no surprise that the national debt is one of the big issues in the upcoming election. To think that some people out there spend too much money and then explain away their reckless behavior by claiming that we haven’t given them enough of our earnings, and that’s why they’re in debt – what an insult! Sorry, big government! You don’t have a right to my money – which in turn is my labor. We as citizens have a duty to fund the legitimate functions of government spelled out in the Constitution. No more, no less. And the truth is that 90% of what our federal government does has no Constitutional standing per the 10th amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserves to the states respectively, or to the people.” Any government agency not spelled out in the constitution has no place in the federal government and ought to be left to be run by the states. Department of education, department of energy, enviromental protection agency, the federal communications commission, the list goes on and on. Its no wonder that those guys are in debt! They are spending money like Jim – on expensive things that they don’t need. But Jim only hurts himself – our government hurts all of us.

Conservative Hope

Posted by Tim on

I’m a bit of a pessimist. I tend to see the world (and my country in particular) going down the drain right before my eyes. I take a bit of comfort in knowing that everything is a part of God’s plan, and that even the Bible talks about the world becoming more and more evil until the day of reckoning is finally upon us. If we look at history, things have really only gotten worse. Obviously we’ve made tremendous technological advances, but the morals of the world are certainly no better than they were 300 years ago, and many people (including myself) would argue that they’re actually worse.

With all that negative thinking, I still sometimes try to see the best in life, and look for a glimmer of hope. Its hard to find, but I found something. It may not be much, but perhaps its a sign that my country will be able to continue walking in the footsteps laid by our founding fathers for at least another century or so. The hope comes from this – knowing that people change, and that some of the most influential people in Western civilization once had views opposite to what they’re known for.

In particular, I’m referring to John Locke, the philosopher who inspired our Founding Fathers to create a nation based on the power of the individual and his God given rights to pursue his own self interests. During the Constitutional Convention no man was quoted more than John Locke. The idea that men were created by God with certain unalienable rights – to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; this was John Locke. Men are not tools of the government, nor are they tools belonging to each other to create some collectivist goal. They are individuals, who can live their own lives, raise their families as they see fit, and own their own property.

Recently I’ve been reading up a bit on Locke’s life before he became the man we revere today. Before he was sternly against an all powerful government, he was for it. That’s right. During his tenure at Oxford University in England he agued for authoritarian rule. It wasn’t until years later that he worked and reworked the philosophy that we know and love – Americanism, in many respects. He spent many years working closely with the Earl of Shaftesbury, a man who changed Locke tremendously. The two of them bounced ideas off each other, and Locke developed a keen sense for politics and economics, as well as religion and morals.

So, if the man most responsible for the basic principles that America was founded on was a converted authoritarian, then anyone can be converted. After reading this, I thought about other great minds who were once on one side of the aisle but settled along the side of liberty, property rights, and individualism. Among them are Thomas Sowell, perhaps my favorite author. The strong conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was once a devoted statist, looking for government to “right” history’s wrongs. Ronald Reagan, who is often considered the greatest conservative in modern history, was once a democrat. Even a number of local conservative talk show hosts, Vicki McKenna and Mark Belling, were once democrats.

This all gives me hope. Everyone can change, there is no such thing as destiny or inevitability. America is not certain to fall just because “even Rome fell”. We can change our path, change the morals of our country, and allow America to remain the only beacon of hope and freedom that the world has left. It takes work, and it takes sacrifice, but lets remember that we’re no ordinary population. America is the freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world. We built this country, and just because it needs a little fixing doesn’t mean that we should let it go in the trash.

Aurora Sparks the Gun Law Debates

Posted by Tim on

To make myself feel morally superior to the talking heads on TV, I decided to put off politicizing the Colorado shootings. Well, at least I tried. Giving respect to the families who have been affected by this event, and NOT making it into a political argument is really what we should do. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both insisted that now is not the time to talk about gun control laws. Let broken families heal before we turn their tragedy into our campaign slogan.

Almost immediately following the shooting, politicians and the media were spewing talking points on how America needs stronger gun laws. If only Americans weren’t allow to own guns, then things like this wouldn’t happen. Its easy to come to such conclusions after a massacre that killed 12 people and put over 50 more in a hospital, but laws should never be made to deal with emotions. The natural way for people think is this: Something is wrong >>> We need a law to fix it. These laws however never really solve the problem.

In this case the problem is psychopaths killing people. These shootings have happened at schools, churches, and now theaters. The way to deal with them, however, is not to ban all people from owning weapons, but to let our criminal justice system work. Every day violent criminals are let out of prison early only to steal, rape, and murder again. Keeping people locked up for their full sentence (even if it means they die in prison) is a proven way to lower crime rates. Crime increases when criminals know they can get off the hook easy.

Banning weapons has been proven not to work time and time again. For instance – Washington DC and Chicago both have had outright bans on firearms and both cities have disturbing crime rates. Germany has tough gun laws as well, but they have been subject to some of the worst shootings in recent history. Even our neighbor to the north, Canada, has tougher gun laws than we do, their most gun-controlled city (Toronto) has the highest gun crime in their country. Gun control does not work. Period.

But not everyone is calling for outright bans to weapons. As I’m writing this, MSNBC is calling for simple bans on assault weapons – rifles that can hold 30 or more rounds, each fired with a single pull of the trigger. While it was one of these weapons that was used in the shooting in Aurora, statistics show that assault weapons account for about 1% of weapons used in crimes. Banning assault weapons simply would do next to nothing to solve the problem.

It is important to realize that many of these mass shootings take place where concealed carry is banned – schools, for example. The shooters know that no one will be firing back at them, and they feel more confident about carrying out their plans. The theater in Aurora is such a business where concealed carry is not allowed. Obviously, that didn’t stop James Holmes. But what if the theater allowed people to carry concealed weapons. Perhaps one person would have been there who could have killed James Holmes before he took the lives of 12 innocent people.

These knee jerk reactions to tragedies are to be expected, but that makes it vitally important for gun rights advocates (like myself) to set the record straight. This was an awful incident that took place, we can all agree, but now is not the time to start making wild calls for gun bans. Certain things in life cannot be avoided, no matter how much we prepare for them. No matter what laws we have in place, violent psychopaths will find a way to kill people. What we can do is allow people to defend themselves, minimizing the loss of life.

Recommended Reading (7/21/12)

Posted by Tim on

The 60s are thought of as an era of progressivism – the hippies, the anti-war crowd,  the civil rights movement. The 80s were of course seen as a decade of strong conservatism. Reagan owned the White House and ran America well; by lowering taxes he raised revenue which he used to build up our military into the most powerful Army on the planet, which hadn’t been the case since a few years after WWII. But if we go back a into the 60s, we see that what Reagan capitalized on was started 20 years earlier.

In 1960, Arizona Senator, Barry Goldwater, wrote his timeless classic, The Conscience of a Conservative. At the time, Goldwater was one of the only true conservatives in the Senate. He gave the guidelines of how to get America back on track. At the time we were a nation weakened tremendously by the days of the New Deal. People were being taxed as high as 90%. Government was growing and spending recklessly. The way back was to embrace the US Constitution and let the free market work.

Goldwater explains the problems with labor unions. He explains problems with the federal government encroaching on state’s rights. He spends considerable time talking about America’s foreign policy towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Showing strength and consistency are extremely important, and aiding the allies we have over the enemies we’d like to turn into friends is vital. Above all – our leaders must not be naive when dealing with people who do not intend to be our friends, and are only looking to destroy us.

Goldwater also makes the case for less taxation. People do not work to serve the government, and the government ought to live within its means. Our money is used most wisely when we use it ourselves, not when the federal government spends it for us. Furthermore, the programs that government spends it money on are often destructive – welfare in particular. There is nothing moral about taking by force from X to give to Y. Charity is best left to individuals, private organizations, and churches.

The principles that Goldwater taught – liberty, limited government, constitutionalism, individualism, and the free market – have impacted countless conservative politicians for decades. Goldwater’s book led him to an unsuccessful presidential run in 1964, but 16 years later, Ronald Reagan would apply his teachings and change America forever.

Recommended Reading (4/2/12)

Posted by Tim on

The ideas on political theory today can all be traced back centuries. Before we ever knew who Barack Obama or Mitt Romney were, old guys in Europe were talking about the same things we’re talking about today. Just like today, the differences are stark, but unlike today – they were clear. Nowadays, it can be hard to see any real difference between a Democrat and a Republican. But by taking a step back, and understanding the fundamentals of each argument, the differences are in plain view.

No recent book spells out the differences better than Mark Levin’s most recent book, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America. In the follow-up to Mark’s last best selling book, Liberty and Tyranny, he dives deeper into the history and philosophy of the left – who he refers to as Utopians. The magical dream world where equality is places above all else, and where wise men make rules for everyone else’s life. Its the dream of the modern day leftist, but also the dream of Plato, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas More, and Karl Marx. In each of their writings they create their own utopia, complete with an all powerful centralized government.

Conversely, Mark also brings to light the philosophers behind the founding of America – Charles de Montesquieu, and John Locke. John Locke gave our founders the idea of inalienable rights given to us by our creator – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Locke also brought us property rights. Montesquieu gave us the gift of our republicanism. A federal government that has certain powers, but most powers and duties are left to the states. Separation of powers, limited government, liberty, property rights – these are the principles of America.

But today, as Mark sees it, (and I tend to agree with him) we are no longer living in a constitutional republic. The government controls more of our lives than ever, and the outlook is grim. Only by returning to the principles which this nation was built on can we escape the wrath of the left’s utopia. We are no longer living in America, but “Ameritopia”.

This book is a great introduction to political theory. It discusses the real differences between the right and left in history and today. Just like Levin’s last book, Ameritopia is a huge hit – debuting as the #1 New York Times best seller, and remaining on the best seller list for weeks. This is a must read for anyone who wants to learn a bit about political theory, the principles of the Constitution and Declaration, and gain a perspective for where we are headed in the future if drastic changes are not made.

VIDEO: Dennis Prager on Liberalism

Posted by Tim on

Other than Fox News, cable TV is run by leftists, and most newspapers are as well. There are plenty of great websites out there, but honestly – the best medium for conservative thought today is talk radio. I encourage everyone to listen to as much radio as possible, whether it be your own local host, or a national icon like Rush Limbaugh. There are, however, countless hosts who sometimes go overlooked. Dennis Prager is one of my personal favorites.

Montesquieu, Virtue, and the Republic

Posted by Tim on

I usually don’t write in the morning. In fact, I can’t remember a time when I did. This might be the first morning post. Today I woke up and I’m trying this new idea – I drink 40 oz of water before I do anything else. Our bodies like to flush out toxins often, but since I was asleep for 8 hours or so, I’m a little behind. Toxins have built up in my body, and it’s time to flush them out. This is supposed to keep me healthier, and make me feel better for the rest of the day. We’ll see how it works. I imagine I’ll just have to pee real bad.

Charles de Montesquieu

Charles de Montesquieu

Anyways – I was reading Mark Levin’s new book, Ameritopia, and I came across an important passage, and one that triggered a few troublesome thoughts. (By the way – that’s how you know it’s a good book – it makes you think.) In a chapter discussing Charles de Montesquieu, Mark explains the differences between the three forms of government; republic, monarchy, despotism. In a republic, the people have sovereign power. In a monarchy, one person or group has power, but is bound by established laws. In a despot, one person or group has all power, and can make and break laws however they sees fit.

Now, although you could argue that America is no longer a republic, given that our government continues to push it’s people around more and more, I’m going to just go ahead and say we’re a republic. While we certainly aren’t the republic we once were, we’re not a monarchy, and although the left seeks despotism, we’re not there yet either. We’re a republic.

Something very important separates republicanism from monarchism and despotism. Monarchism and despotism deal only with the nature of government, and it’s principles. Montesquieu writes, “There is a difference between the nature of government and it’s principle: its nature is that which makes it what it is, and it’s principle, that which makes it act. The one is its particular structure, the other is the human passions that set it in motion.” And that’s all there is – nature, and principle.

Montesquieu continues, however, to confront republicanism – “In a popular state (a republic) there must be an additional spring, which is virtue.” Well, then – virtue is something that matters. While in a despotic government (fascism, totalitarianism, etc) there is no need for virtue since one person has absolute power and need not answer to anyone else, a republic requires virtue to stay a republic. Otherwise it slowly slips away, and we wind up with some kind of pseudo-republic like we have now.

It’s been said over and over again, by countless people, “Freedom is fragile.” How true. When the entire state of government and society rests on the virtue of those in office, our system is very fragile. This tells us that because those in power can make or break a republic, and turn it into a tyrannical despotic nation, it’s important to limit their power. Those in office make the decisions that in the end affect our freedom. And if we’re only going on their “virtues” to maintain our freedom, well – let’s just not give them that power in the first place.

This is an argument for smaller government. Because freedom and individual sovereignty is widely dispersed, so power should be the same way. The power to make decisions in our own lives should come from us as individuals. Not only is freedom dispersed, but so is knowledge. Only you, the individual, have the knowledge to know what is best for your life. The government should not, and cannot, make decisions for you – whether those decisions have to do with your healthcare, energy bill, or what kinds of guns you keep in your house.

Our government and all the crooks and cronies in it, all affect the way our country works. Does it sound like a good idea to give them more power, as if they’re somehow more noble, wise, and well-meaning than any other human? No – of course not. Limit their power, and we can sustain all the freedoms that come along with being a republic.

Recommended reading – “The Spirit of Laws” by Charles de Montesquieu, and “Ameritopia” by Mark Levin.

SPECIAL: Andrew Breitbart Dies at 43

Posted by Tim on

We lost a good one. Last night around midnight Andrew Breitbart died at age 43. While going for a late night stroll, Andrew Breitbart suddenly collapsed. Paramedics were called, and they tried to revive him. Unfortunately, he passed shortly after. Andrew left behind his wife, Susannah, and four children.

Don’t know who Andrew Breitbart was? Remember the whole ACORN scandal in 2008? Remember the Anthony Weiner incident? Well, Andrew Breitbart was the man behind both of those, and countless other investigations. He was a conservative master mind from Los Angeles, who continually pushed the envelope. He exposed corruption, took on the media head on, and never let his opinion be unknown. If you don’t know who Andrew was, you ought to. We really lost someone special.

I first heard the news this morning while brushing my teeth and watching Fox News. “Breaking News – Andrew Breitbart is dead!” I was stunned. I had just been watching old interviews of him the other night on YouTube. Something was up. What exactly are “natural causes” for a 43 year old? As I started my work day, I shared the news with my coworkers. Many of them had a similar reaction – confusion. And after I told them what Breitbart had been saying just a month before he died, they turned into conspiracy theorists.

At the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, Andrew Breitbart gave a speech. During his speech he did a little foreshadowing. We all knew that Andrew has an uncanny ability to dig up dirt on people. Well, he claimed to have hit the mother load. “I have videos…”, he said. “Videos no one has seen. Videos of Barack Obama in college!” Wow! That was a stunner. Obama’s college days are largely kept secret. We don’t know his grades, his friends, his teachers, the essays he wrote, the things he said. It’s all been a mystery. Not anymore, thanks to Andrew Breitbart.

So what did Andrew find? We don’t know yet. The plan was to release the videos sometime before the 2012 presidential election. I assume that the videos will still be released, but could Breitbart’s death be related to these videos? Was his death really “natural causes”? I must be losing my mind.

I then came to a point of denial. You know what – Andrew Breitbart isn’t dead. He’s faking his death, and he’s going to come back before the 2012 election and release these videos, in pure media-craze fashion. It sounds like something he might actually do. Later I read more reports on his death, and came to the sad conclusion that yes – Andrew Breitbart is dead.

Like I said before, we really lost a good one. Luckily, he left behind his many websites that will continue to put out conservative news. Sites like Breitbart.com, BigGovernment.com, and BigJournalism.com. Last but not least, he left behind the videos that many of us are dying to see – those videos of Barack Obama in college. Andrew’s legacy will live on.

 

Breeding Conservatism

Posted by Tim on

It seems that a lot of posts stem from conversations I have with people, whether they be friends, family, coworkers, or even strangers. In the end, a good conversation inspires thought, and that’s what this blog is based on – thought.

The latest conversation on politics was with a republican, who I agree with on some things and disagree with on others. I agree with him on things like gun control, and public employee unions. While he considers himself a conservative, I might not call him that. More of a pseudo-con if you ask me. While he may agree with me on moral issues, he doesn’t stand up strong for them. For me, abortion is life and death and therefore very important. For him, it’s a minor league issue. You see what I mean, right?

Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum

Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum

During our talk he mentioned his distaste for the candidates running, and his disappointment in the upcoming republicans. Why aren’t we breeding the next generation of Ronald Reagans? Well, let’s pick these two statements apart. These are things I hear from people all the time, and I assure you they’re flat out wrong. People are uninformed. They see what the local TV wants them to see. They get their news from Yahoo! Don’t worry – I’ll set the record straight.

Unfortunately, people will often take someone relatively unknown, like Rick Santorum, and equate “unknown” with “weak”. This can be a fatal mistake. If you look back a few years, virtually no one outside of Illinois knew of Barry Obama. Yet he managed to run a very aggressive campaign against Hilary Clinton in the democratic primaries, and he ran a brilliant campaign against John McCain, his Republican opponent for the presidency. Unknown is not weak.

Furthermore, “weak” is relative. Who are we comparing our candidates to? Ronald Reagan? Again, if we look back – Reagan fumbled with his words. He messed up at debates. He misspoke. Our memories seem to forget that Ronald Reagan was not “the perfect candidate”. In fact, he was anything but. He was the outsider, pushing to break the status quo. Our candidates may mess up at times, but so did Reagan, and so has Obama.

I asked this person, “How many of the debates have you watched?” He told me he hadn’t watched a full debate from start to finish. Personally, I’ve watched about half of them from start to finish, then rewatched them an hour later, then read reviews on them, then listen to the radio to hear what the talk-radio-pundits were saying. If you haven’t watched the debates or done a bit of research, don’t tell me that the candidates are weak or that you don’t like the selection.

The fact of the matter is that we have had a lot of great candidates come and go, and we still have some running today. Michele Bachmann is a leader in the House of Representatives, and has a great record as a conservative. Tim Pawlenty is a popular republican governor of a liberal state, Minnesota. Rick Perry grew jobs in Texas as governor faster than all of the other states combined! These are leaders in our country, all of whom have great records, who just didn’t catch on.

Left behind is our mainstay, Mitt Romney – former governor and private sector tycoon. Rick Santorum – leading welfare reform and tough as nails on social issues. Ron Paul – brilliant on the constitution and small government. Newt Gingrich – rich resume, former speaker of the house, and the best debater on stage. These are not weak candidates. They may have their flaws, but any one of them could beat Obama!

This coming election will not be another 2008. There are a number of things that have drastically changed since then. First of all, Barack Obama ran in 2008 with a clean slate. Now he has a record, and it’s awful. Everyone knows it. Despite what the media may tell you, unemployment sucks, home sales suck, GDP growth sucks, Obamacare sucks, stimulus sucks. I could go on and on. Obama is a weak candidate with a horrible record to run on. He doesn’t have nearly the same enthusiasm behind his campaign as he did in 2008. People realize just who he is, and people are rejecting him.

Don’t count our guys out. They aren’t weak. They can all go 10 rounds, as they’re proving it right now. As I’ve stated before, Rick Santorum is who I stand behind. I’m really pulling for him to get the nomination. Seeing Santorum debate Obama on substance and issues would be a slaughter. But in the end, if Santorum isn’t the nominee, I’ll support whoever the candidate is. We have a strong few left, and any of one them is better than who we have now.

As far as “not breeding new candidates”…. well…. Here, I’ll list a few names for you – John Kasich, Scott Walker, Jan Brewer, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, Rick Scott, Mitch Daniels, Michele Bachmann, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio. The point is this – the next generation is strong. All of the names here could be running for president in the next 10-20 years. Our party is strong. We’ve gone through some rough times, but we’re starting to get back on track. Conservatism is not dead – it’s alive and well, and it’s ready to fight!