Johnson-Weld is Not Just a Protest Vote

One undeniable fact is that a large portion of both Democrats and Republicans are more than dissatisfied with their party's nominee. This has left many of the faithful on both sides scratching their heads, wondering what they should do this November. "Should I sat home? Should I vote for a third party? Should I just write in the candidate I voted for in the primary?"

Short of an organized write-in campaign, most write-in votes are simply a record of protest. The same could be said for many third party votes. Third party candidates are generally crack pots, like Vermin Supreme, who want to mandate oral hygiene and give away free ponies to every American, or think tank gurus who are often unknown and have never held elected office. Few voters will vote for a third party candidate with any expectation that he could get elected or actually govern.

Fortunately, the Libertarian Party has offered up a ticket this year that could actually be taken seriously. Unlike the Reform Party of the past, which was nothing more than a vehicle for Ross Perot's cult of personality, the Libertarian Party has been around since 1971, founded on the principles of limited government, non-interventionism, and laissez-faire economics.  Current nominee, Gary Johnson, describes the party as being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. (Personally I find that description a bit simplistic and not entirely accurate, but it does convey some semblance of truth.)

The ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld is not the perfect ideal of Libertarian purity, but they do offer a real, viable alternative to both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Johnson is the former two term governor of New Mexico and Weld is the former two term governor of Massachusetts. Both served as Republican governors of Democratic states where they governed conservatively, yet were solidly re-elected.  They enjoyed high popularity and were both considered successful governors. Governors Johnson and Weld each bring more public sector executive experience than both Trump and Clinton combined.  When is the last time a third party candidate could say that about the Democrats and Republicans?

Of course, the Libertarian Party has some loons. One of their candidates for chairman stripped off his clothes at the most recent national convention. But every party has their embarrassments. After all, the GOP nominated Donald Trump, a candidate who buys into conspiracy theories such as blaming Bush for 9/11 and accusing Ted Cruz's father of being involved in the JFK assassination. What I do suggest is that you look at the actual candidate himself. Look at Gary Johnson's record as governor. (And I would suggest looking at the actual record of Trump and Clinton too).

As a successful two term governor, Johnson can point to some significant accomplishments:

-Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget

-Left New Mexico with a budget surplus

-Used Line Item Veto thousands of times to trim the budget

-Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined

-Cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone

-Created more than 20,000 new jobs

-First New Mexico Governor to challenge education status quo and propose statewide voucher program

-Restored State General Fund reserves to more than $222 million from a low of $28.1 million

-Limited annual state budget growth to 5.0% during eight years in office

-Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them—a first for New Mexico

-Vetoed 32% of the total number of bills submitted for his signature

That is a record any candidate would be proud to run on and would stand up well to anything Trump or Clinton can point to.

Another good reason to support this ticket is that it will get us to actually ask the impertinent questions that need to be asked. For example, what does the Department of Education actually do and why do we even have it? Some will throw up their hands and suggest that we can not touch this sacred cow. "Education is so important that of course we need a Department of Education!" But just slapping a label on something to make it sound important doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. Is there really any doubt that the "Affordable Care Act" has actually made health insurance LESS affordable? It is time for the government to stop coasting. A Libertarian presidency will force politicians to really evaluate the true public value of government institutions and program. We need to start asking if these are redundant, serve the public good, or even if there is a better and more efficient way to serve the original purpose. 

Of course there are issues on which I disagree with Johnson. Abortion and religious liberty are two issues where the Libertarian ticket and I are at odds. But I do not expect that I will agree with any candidate 100% of the time. On those issues, I see the courts as having more to say about them than I do any piece of legislation. 

I heartily endorse the ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld for President of the United States. This is a ticket that brings the gravitas one would expect from a Presidential candidacy. I encourage everyone to consider their record and to respond favorably in polls so that they can get in in the debates. Gary Johnson would make a much better President than either Trump or Clinton. Let's see if we can shock the world.

Why I Have Been a Republican and Why I am Now #NeverTrump

I have always been interested in politics, even from a very young age. I can’t really say what it is that drew me in. Maybe it was the energy and excitement I saw on television during the conventions. Maybe it was all the pretty campaign buttons and lawn signs. Maybe it was the educational videos from Schoolhouse Rock. I honestly don’t know what drew me in, but I was fascinated.

My real coming of age was in the 1980’s. I remember what life was like in the late 1970’s under Democrat leadership. The country was a terrible mess. In fact, as I got older and heard Democrat politicians describe the economy as “the worst since the Great Depression”, I just had to shake my head. Did the 1970’s somehow disappear from history?

There was a terrible malaise that overshadowed the country. Inflation was at 13.5%. Interest rates were at 20%. (To give you an idea of what this meant, think of your credit card interest at 35%). Gross Domestic Product was declining at a rate of 0.03%. Unemployment was at 7.2% (not including those who gave up looking for work). People had to wait in line to purchase gasoline. Gas lines could stretch for a mile or more. Across the globe, American’s were being held hostage in Iran, as a third world radical thumbed his nose at the United States. People were living in fear of an aggressive Soviet Union, wondering if war was inevitable. To say things were terrible is an understatement.

The election of 1980 was the first time I really paid attention to the election. I really didn’t understand much, at the age of 12, but I knew something had to change. I didn’t really understand everything, but I heard some things from Governor Ronald Reagan that did stick with me. “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.” The concept that government should be limited was an idea that has stuck with me from the days of Reagan to today.

Here are some other great quotes from Reagan that express that idea so well:

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”

“Government doesn’t solve problems. It subsidizes them.”

“The problem is not that the people are taxed too little. The problem is that the government spends too much.”

“Man is not free unless government is limited.”

(Here are some great Reagan speeches that express his character and his policies)

Reagan asked the American people in his one debate with Carter, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The American people obviously believed that they were not and Reagan was swept into office, carrying 44 out of 50 states plus DC. It was an overwhelming landslide and a mandate for his conservative approach to government. His record in office was such that four years later he asked Americans the same question. In 1984 he carried 49 out of 50 states plus DC. It was the most resounding affirmation of a political agenda in history. Why? BECAUSE IT WORKED! His program of tax cuts actually doubled revenues to the treasury. (see here, here, and here for information about tax cuts and the Laffer Curve). His smaller government approach turned our country around in ways no one could have expected. When Obama said that he couldn’t fix the country in 4 years, I just look at Reagan and see someone who DID fix it in four years, and did so without blaming his predecessor.

By the end of his last year in office, inflation was reduced to 4.1%. Interest rates fell to 4%. Gross Domestic Product went from a negative to an average growth of 3.05% with some quarters growing at 4% or more. It was the longest peacetime economic expansion in history. Unemployment dropped to 5.4% and 20 million new jobs were created. Families whose income was less than $10,000 went from 8.8% to 8.3% (so those who say the poor got poorer during Reagan are lying their butts off). Families making over $75,000 grew from 20.2% to 25.7% as new small businesses were formed. Poverty dropped by 3% and the median (not to be confused with average) family income increased by $4,000.

On the foreign policy front, the American hostages in Iran were released shortly after his inauguration. American military strength was once again respected in the world. Reagan was accused by many before his election as being a “cowboy”, but he actually used the military quite sparingly. His peace through strength philosophy brought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table and was the first President EVER to negotiate an arms REDUCTION treaty with the Russians. Because of the foundations laid by Reagan during his eight years in office, it wasn’t long before the Soviet Block collapsed and the Cold War was over. The United States had won, thanks to Reagan’s leadership.

In 1986 when I turned 18 and was old enough to vote, it was a no brainer. I eagerly and happily registered as a Republican.

Reagan was a great example of what a President should be. He was firm in his resolve, yet polite in his demeanor. He stood for his principles against the Democrats, but always treated them politely. Of course he took the occasional jab at them, but did so with a sense of humor. He and Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil met regularly and had a genuine friendship, though the opposed each other politically. Reagan respected the office of the President, and carried himself with an awareness of the office he held.

Reagan also appealed to American’s hopes and dreams, not their prejudices and fears. He told us:

“There are no great limits to human growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder.”

“There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.”

Reagan helped us to see American as the shining city on a hill, a beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world. The days of malaise were over and America truly WAS great again. But he also warned us that freedom must be fought for in every generation. “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and hand on for them to do the same.” Truer words were never spoken.

Since my first election where I was eligible to vote in 1988, I have been a loyal Republican. I have supported the Republican candidates over the Democrats in every election. Even though some of the candidates were not my first choice, I saw them as at least acceptable alternatives to the Democrats. I was thrilled to see Newt Gingrich and the Republicans win control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. I was enthusiastic about the Contract with America and the promises it contained. I also saw the political climate get more nasty and bitter. From my observations, most of it came from the left, but the nation became more polarized. It became more Red vs. Blue than trying to do what was right for the country.

Both George HW Bush and George W Bush disappointed me, but I still believe that their performance was better than what Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have been. I have seen what a disaster Obama has been and know that John McCain and Mitt Romney would have been better than the current administration, as imperfect as those candidates were.

But now enter Donald Trump. For the first time in my life, I can not support the Republican candidate for President. For the first time I can not tell which would be worse, Trump or Hillary. It is a true Sophie’s Choice. Either way we lose.

I joined the #NeverTrump movement and I must echo their sentiments. There were 16 other candidates running for the Republican nomination that I could have supported and unified under. Any one of them could have unified the party. Some would have a more difficult time than others, but all 16 of them would have unified the party. Only one candidate could not. That candidate was Donald Trump. We warned them that if Trump was nominated that we would NEVER vote for him. In fact, his own supporters said that if Trump wasn’t the nominee that THEY would walk away. Now they want us to support their candidate as if our vote is owed to them. It was the Trump supporters that foisted an unacceptable candidate on the Republican Party. It is their own fault if Trump loses, not the fault of those who warned that we would not support him. They did this over our own objections. They made their own bed. Now they must deal with the consequences and take responsibility for their own actions. We have waited 30 years for the GOP to nominate a constitutional conservative. The Democrats are nominating their weakest candidate in history and this was the year we could actually remind Americans through debate and policy that conservatism actually works. Instead the GOP in its anger blew its load on a pathological, narcissistic, sociopath.

The reasons I can not support Trump are many.

First there is the issue of temperament. The President of the United States must carry himself (or herself) with the decorum and dignity befitting the office. He is the representative of the United States to the rest of the world. He is also one who must work with the Congress to pass helpful legislation and/or prevent harmful legislation. Trump has advanced himself politically on the basis of personal insults. He did not go after his opponents on the basis of issues. When he was embarrassed on the Hugh Hewitt radio show by demonstrating his ignorance of foreign policy he blamed the host for giving him “gotcha” questions. That quickly was dispelled when Carly Fiorina answered the same questions with precision and clear knowledge of the issues, despite not being prepared for the interview. Trump’s response was to insult Ms Fiorina’s face. When a super PAC (NOT the Cruz campaign) created an internet meme calling into question Melania Trump’s modeling career, Trump could have taken the high road. He could have said something along the lines of, “My wife had a wonderful career as a professional model. She posed for a well respected men’s fashion magazine that is read by millions. I am very proud of my wife and her work. She is a beautiful woman and will make a wonderful first lady.” Instead, Trump tweeted out that he would “spill the beans” on Heidi Cruz and later posted some unflattering pictures of the candidate’s wife. When confronted about this in an interview in Wisconsin, he simply said. “He started it.” The interviewer correctly pointed out to Mr. Trump, “That is the argument of a five year old.”

Trump did not stop there. He used The National Enquirer to further go after Cruz, falsely accusing him of having multiple affairs. This is coming from a man who admits that he frequently cheated on his own wives and is currently on his third marriage. Not only that, but also accused Sen/ Cruz’s father of being complicit in the JFK assassination, again based upon a story in the National Enquirer. This is not Trump’s only foray into conspiracy theories. He was a strong proponent of the birther controversy, suggesting that President Obama was not an American. He went to that same well against Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio. He also accused President George W Bush of being in on the 9/11 attacks. Trump acts more like the tinfoil behatted rather than a President of the United States.

Trump also has misled the American people on the nominating process for the Republican Party in an effort to demonize his opponent. The rules clearly state that the nominee of the party must have a MAJORITY of delegates, not a plurality. Just because one has the most delegates does not mean one should automatically be the nominee. The fact that one does not have the majority (1237) indicates that the majority did not support you. Delegates are awarded by primary, caucus, or state convention. In every instance, the voters of the states had the opportunity to make their voices heard. Trump never complained when party rules favored him, such as earning ALL of the delegates of South Carolina when he only won 30^ of the vote there. Cruz understood the rules and competed for delegates wherever he could. There is nothing underhanded about that. Reports that Cruz was winning over Trump delegates failed to consider the process. Of course, those delegates would vote for Trump on the first ballot, but in order for the there to be a nominee, there needs to be a MAJORITY vote. If a majority does not materialize on the first ballot, it would of course be necessary for some delegates to change their votes on subsequent ballots in order for there to be a nominee. Cruz merely made his case that he would be the stronger nominee in the general election and would be a better President….that is all. There was nothing dirty, illegal, or underhanded about his efforts. Trump deliberately spun this as “stealing the election” away from him, despite the fact that Trump had yet to win enough delegates to be nominated. He used the ignorance of the American people on the process as another tool to unfairly demonize his opponent.

Character aside, take a look at where Trump has stood on the issues in the past. He supported higher taxes on job creators, including a one time wealth tax. He has supported a single payer health care system. He has supported the abuse of eminent domain to take property from private citizens for personal profit. He has been a part of the problem, giving campaign donations to far left progressives like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, even praising Hillary as someone who would make a good president.

When it comes to limited government, Trump sees the Presidency as a dictatorship. He wants to take unilateral actions that make Obama’s pen and phone seem enlightened in comparison. When asked what the proper role of the federal government is, he suggested that they should be responsible for education and healthcare.

On foreign policy, he seems to think that he and Putin will be best buddies. He has suggested that Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia be given their own nuclear weapons. He has suggested using torture on prisoners, and going after families. This is the approach of a mafia godfather, not a President.

Trump is no conservative.. His conversion to conservative rhetoric is quite convenient. He has been a progressive his whole life and then suddenly becomes a conservative when he decides to run for President? He has no credibility. He has spent his entire life telling people what they want to hear. I simply do not trust that he means what he says. In fact, he has already backtracked on everything he said in the primaries by stating that his promises where merely “suggestions”.

The very things that attracted me to the Republican Party are sadly lacking in Donald Trump. Limited government? Nope. Constitutional restraints on the Presidency? Nope.  Free market economics? Nope. Lower taxes? Nope. Appealing to our hopes and dreams rather than our fears? Nope. Trump fails as a Republican all around.

I will not vote for Donald Trump. It saddens me that I can not support the GOP for the first time in my life. I will vote my conscience and simply let God sort out who is the true lesser of two evils….or the evil of two lessers.

Why the SCOTUS Decision on Same-Sex Marriage Concerns Me....And It's Not Because Homosexuals Can Marry

I am deeply disturbed by Friday’s SCOTUS decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, but not for the reasons you may think.. I am not an advocate of some form of Christian Sharia where Judeo-Christian morality should be codified into the laws of the cities, states, and our nation. I am not concerned that homosexual couples who wish to pledge their lives to each other may now do so and receive all of the civil benefits offered to married couples. While I am a devout, evangelical Christian, I do not expect people who do not share my faith to act in accordance with my faith. A man convinced against his will remains unconvinced still. There must be a change of heart before we see a change of behavior. The job of the Church is the preaching of the Gospel, not enforcing a code of morality on unbelievers.

            What DOES concern me is that the SCOTUS decision is the opening salvo of an attack by the radical left on the religious liberties of devout Christians. Clothing themselves in the rhetoric and trappings of tolerance and diversity, the radical left has proven themselves to be quite intolerant and monolithic. They have infested the academy, and by extension, our culture, with political correctness reminiscent of Orwellian Newspeak. Their agenda is not diversity and tolerance, but rather conformity. The Early Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire, not because they worshiped Christ, but because their worship was exclusive to Christ. They refused to bow before the altar of Caesar and offer worship to the emperor. So too the radical left has demanded that Christians abandon their deeply held principles when they come into conflict with their secular values. They demand that Christians bow before their god of diversity at the altar of tolerance.

            The radical left has often chastised Christians who want to “impose” their morality on others. They rightly objected to efforts by the religious right to change the laws to correspond to Judeo-Christian moral standards. But now, they want to impose their secular morality on Christians,; a morality not based upon a centuries old tradition of religious teaching, but a morality that corresponds with the faddish whims of changing times. With feet planted firmly in midair, they feign outrage at the “antiquated” values of an ancient faith. President Obama himself chided people of faith. “And it’s not surprising they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anit-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

            The radical left has two primary tools at their disposal. The first is to force their own morality and values down the throats of others using the coercive power of the state. If you do not agree with them or conform to their ideas, they want to tax, fine, or imprison you. They seek to accomplish this by legislation, executive order, and if those fail, they turn to the courts. The second tool is through intimidation. They redefine right and wrong, good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable. Then when one does not agree, they will attempt to intimidate by public shaming. If you are a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin and stand for traditional marriage, then you are labeled a hater, bigot, and homophobe.

            For years the left has told us to stay out of their bedrooms. Now they want to kidnap us, drag us into their bedrooms, and won’t let us leave. It is not enough that homosexuals have the freedom to marry. They now want to force everyone to watch, participate, and celebrate their freedom. Jack Philips, a Christian baker in Lakewood, CO, was ordered by a Colorado court to change his policies and undergo sensitivity training because he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Melissa and Aaron Klein of Oregon lost their business and face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and legal bills because they too refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple based upon their religious beliefs. Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin of Albuquerque, NM were also ordered to employ their services as photographers at a gay wedding, despite their religious objections. A Walkerton, IN pizza parlor, when asked hypothetically if they would cater a gay wedding, indicated that they would not because of their deeply held religious beliefs. They were publically shamed and intimidated to the point of having to close their shop. This is just small sample of how the radical left is COMPELLING people to violate their conscience and religion in order to participate in a practice they find morally wrong and offensive to their deeply held religious beliefs. Contrary to popular belief, to a Christian, a wedding IS a religious ceremony. It becomes an intrusion of the state into the Church.

            Liberties are not lost overnight, but gradually. Looking at other nations, we can see what we have to look forward to if we do not stop this in its tracks right now. In Denmark, homosexual couples have won the right to get married in any church they choose. While priests may opt out, the local bishop is required to find a replacement minister to perform the ceremony. In Canada, despite having free speech and freedom of religion or conscience written into their constitution, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution  by the government. Dawn Stefanowicz, a child of homosexual parents in Canada who filed an amicus brief to the SCOTUS on the gay marriage case, wrote an article in Aleteia where she stated:

            “Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under ‘sexual orientation.’ It only takes one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

               The plaintiff has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought the complaint….

               The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home…

               Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power- and the end of First Amendment freedoms.”

            The radical left has no appreciation for religion. To a Christian, their beliefs are based upon the Bible; a sacred book that they believe is the very Word of God. Other religions also believe that their sacred books are divinely inspired. To the radical left, nothing is inalterable, even revelation from God. From President Obama chiding Christians for bitterly clinging to their religion to Hillary Clinton who said at the ­Women in the World Summit, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed”. Yes, centuries of religious tradition and doctrine, based upon divinely inspired texts, must be altered to conform to the opinions of Hillary Clinton and the radical left. Does she now believe that she is God?  Even New York Times columnist Frank Bruni wrote that opposing same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs “elevates unthinking obeisance above intelligent observance” and that we need to be “freeing religion and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to.” His article quoted a gay activist who said “Church leaders must be made to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

            Kirsten Powers, a committed liberal, but also a Christian, responded to Clinton’s comments in a USA Today article where she said, “Let’s free secularists from their unthinking obeisance to a plot line that casts religious believers as intolerant dimwits in need of saving by not-so-benevolent ideological bullies. Let’s stop treating the ignorant stereotyping and smearing of religious believers as a noble, self sanctifying cause.” She went on to say, “The intolerance, condescension and ignorance expressed about religious people is troubling enough in itself. But what sends chills up the spine is the barely veiled advocacy for authoritarianism when religious beliefs clash with secular sacred cows. After all, what entity will make religious leaders ‘take homosexuality off the sin list?’ How exactly will Clinton change religious beliefs at odds with her worldview?”

            Here then lies my concern. Despite the majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy that still affirms religious liberty, the issue will not really be decided without a future hearing by the Supreme Court that codifies it. The aforementioned cases of bakers, photographers, and florists are still in courts or have been settled by state courts unfavorably to the religious liberty of Christians. Now that same-sex marriage has been affirmed and sexual orientation has been granted protected class status, it give more ammunition to those who wish to persecute or punish Christians for holding firm to the tenets of their faith. We will see religious institutions such as colleges required to accommodate homosexuals in their hiring and admissions policies. They could face losing accreditation and funding. Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent:

 “Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage- when for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question in they opposed same-sex marriage….There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.”

            The fact that these cases will appear before the Court is not in doubt. How they will be decided still is. So also is the make up of the Court. It is likely that the next President will appoint at least one, maybe more Supreme Court justices. With Hillary Clinton as a serious candidate for President, it is possible, should she be elected, that she could be appointing those justices. Given what we know about her views on religion and religious liberty, it is unlikely that those appointments would support the cause of religious liberty. While her election is not a foregone conclusion, it is still a possibility, and as such, it gives me cause for concern.

            And so let me conclude with my own views on the solution to the gay marriage debate. The answer is for the states to stop issuing marriage licenses. Homosexuals have been living together as married couples for a very long time, in spirit if not in law. What they really wanted was the rights and benefits that the law grants to married couples. By the state eliminating marriage licenses, it allows all individuals to form whatever “loving” relationships they wish in accordance with their own beliefs and traditions. If they wish to receive certain legal rights and privileges that go with being married, they can file an affidavit of civil union with the court, just like any other legal partnership contract. This removes the state from marriage and keeps it in the Church where it belongs. The institution of marriage long predates the institution of the state. From a Christian perspective, Adam knew his wife, Eve and they became one flesh…long before there was a state. Abraham took a wife and did not register it with any government. Marriage does not need a state sanction to be valid in the eyes of God. What confirms my marriage to my own lovely wife is the vows we made to each other before our family, our friends, and our God in a private religious ceremony. The state marriage license is irrelevant.

            Let me leave this discussion with a Facebook post by Representative Justin Amash (R-MI)…

            “Throughout history, different cultures have defined marriage according to their own customs and practices. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and atheists do not share identical views on marriage. In fact, significant differences regarding marriage exist even within Christianity.

What makes marriage traditional is not its adherence to a universal definition but rather that it is defined by personal faith, not by government. For thousands of years, marriage flourished without a universal definition and without government intervention. Then came licensing of marriage. In recent decades, we've seen state legislatures and ballot initiatives define marriage, putting government improperly at the helm of this sacred institution.

Those who care about liberty should not be satisfied with the current situation. Government intervention in marriage presents new threats to religious freedom and provides no advantages, for gay or straight couples, over unlicensed (i.e., traditional) marriage. But we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court for where things stand.

To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.”

LGBT....There is no Right to Enslave!

The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, the press, religion, and assembly. In other words, it grants the right to believe what you want, say what you believe, print what you say, and associate with those of like mind. The First Amendment rights are the most sacrosanct rights we have. The political left has historically been a champion of those rights when it served their own purposes. We protect those rights, regardless of how distasteful and unpopular they may be.

In recent years, we have seen the political left completely abandon the first amendment. They are the ones who brought Political Correctness into being. They are the ones who have tried to control speech, thought, and beliefs. Rather than engage in a civilized discourse, they attempt to insult, drown out, shame, and otherwise berate anyone who disagrees with them. They call them hateful, bigots, and homophobes. These insults are neither fair nor accurate. Most importantly, they have turned their ire on Christians above all. It has now gotten so bad, that they want to use the power of the state to get everyone to conform to their values. They will often claim Christians are “imposing their morality” but fail to see their own hypocrisy. They are attempting to impose their own morality on everyone else by using the power of the state to do so.

The separation of church and state is a key element of our republic. It was designed to serve two purposes. The first was to prevent the church from imposing religious obligations on those who were not members of their faith. As a Christian I certainly endorse prayer, even voluntary prayer in schools, but it is most definitely wrong to require all students to pray in public schools. That would be an imposition of the church on the state. As much as I think it is a good idea for everyone to pray, it would be wrong of me or the church to impose that standard upon everyone else. If I want others to follow my example and beliefs, I can engage in civil discourse and attempt to persuade others to do likewise…voluntarily…not by force of law.

Likewise, it is designed to prevent the state from interfering in religion. It is here that the political left has gone off track. They assume that since our state is secular that it can enforce secular values on religious people. They assume that they have the right to force people to put aside their religious values in order to serve a secular purpose. In this they are dead wrong.

Our rights are not granted to us by government. They are inherent to our humanity. The Constitution did not GIVE us our rights, it merely recognized them and protected them. These rights are the rights to life, liberty, to believe or not believe, to speak freely, to acquire and own property. These rights do not depend upon another to obtain nor do they impose upon the rights of others.

The Indiana RFRA is a microcosm of the battle being waged by the political left against people of faith, particularly Christians. The law as it is stated merely grants an individual a chance to make his case heard in court if he has objections based upon religious grounds, and that the state needs to prove a compelling state interest in enforcing compliance. It also requires a remedy that does the least amount of damage to one’s religious liberty.

To be clear, no one has suggested that Christian business owners should have the right to refuse service to homosexuals in the general sense. If a Christian restaurant owner had guests who were gay and wanted to be served a dinner, there would be no compelling reason why he would not serve them. However, should they then ask that restaurateur to cater their gay wedding, the stakes have changed. The Christian is now being asked to be an active participant in a religious celebration that is in contradiction to his faith. He should be free to decline on religious grounds. The political left disagrees. They have used the cover of “non-discrimination” to advocate for slavery.

Slavery?

Yes! Slavery! They want to compel the Christian business owner to labor against his will for a cause he finds morally offensive. Compelling the labor of another against his will is the definition of slavery. Should he refuse to comply with the wishes of the homosexual couple who wants his services, the LGBT community, and those on the political left, want the state to compel the business owner to provide labor and goods under threat of force (hefty fines or imprisonment). The fact that the business owner is compensated for his product or service is irrelevant. I’m sure the plantation owner in 1830 believed that he was compensating his slaves for their labor by providing housing, food, and medical care for his slaves. They were slaves nonetheless because they did not have a choice in whether to perform the labor or not. There can be no right to enslave others.

Should the secular state give homosexual couples the right to marry? That really is up to the state. Personally I do not believe that the legal fiction called a  marriage license is anything more than a civil union contract between consenting people, heterosexual OR homosexual. Marriage is a religious institution and is separate from ANYTHING that the state grants. This law does not prohibit gays from seeking and obtaining a civil union. If the couple wants to call it marriage it is up to them.  If they want to have a celebration of their union, they are free to do so.  If they want flowers, a cake, formal attire, and a photographer, they are free to obtain them. There really is no shortage of businesses who are willing to accommodate them. Where the line has been crossed is when they feel that their “right to a cake, or photographer, or other amenities” permits them to compel the labor of another under duress.

We should be respecting the religious liberties of ALL Americans. The state should in no way compel any of its citizens to violate their conscience and religious beliefs in order to comply with political correctness. There is no such thing as “gay rights, black rights, women’s rights, fill in the name of your group here rights”. All rights are individual rights and need to be respected on the basis of individuals. Otherwise we end up pitting one group against another in defense of their “special” rights.

LGBT activists, liberals, and progressives….THERE IS NO RIGHT TO ENSLAVE! Love who you want, but don’t try to use force to get everyone to agree with you. If a business owner respectfully declines to participate in your wedding, respectfully take your business to someone who will. There is no shortage of business wanting your patronage.

What is Government?

What is government? Frederic Bastiat defined government as “the great fiction, through which everbody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” While there is much in this definition to commend itself, the best definition is to say that government is force. To exercise government is to compel other people to engage in behavior, refrain from behavior, or to give of their resources under the threat of violence, either explicitly or implied.

All government activity is performed by the barrel of a gun. In some cases this gun is clearly seen. If someone commits a crime like robbery, then police officers, as agents of the government, will come with guns to arrest the perpetrator. In other cases, the gun is implied. To see the gun, just follow the chain of non-compliance. Harry Browne gives an excellent example in his book Why Government Doesn’t Work :

            Suppose, for example, that you’re a barber. One day the state Board of

Tonsorial Cutters of Hair (BOTCH) issues a regulation to stop “cut-throat

competition” — decreeing that no barber can charge less than $8 for a haircut.

(Many states do have laws prohibiting barbers from charging less than a stated

minimum price.)

                So long as you charge at least $8, you won’t even notice the regulation. But

suppose your price is only $6. Perhaps you’re in a low-income neighborhood

where people can’t afford $8 haircuts, or maybe your shop is new and you want

to attract customers, or perhaps business is slow and you need to stimulate sales.

For whatever reason, suppose you offer haircuts for $6.

                You may be able to get away with this for a month or two. But eventually

the folks at BOTCH will send you a letter, ordering you to desist.

If you comply by boosting your price to $8, you’ll hear nothing more. But if

you keep cutting hair for $6, eventually some men in suits will come to your

shop and warn you to stop undercharging.

                If you continue to ignore the law, you’ll receive a subpoena — telling you to

appear in court. If you don’t show up, or if you ignore the court’s order to raise

your price, your barber’s license will be revoked.

                If you defy the court by continuing to cut hair, another group of men will

come to your shop. These fellows may not be in suits, and they probably will

have guns. They will be there to close your business.

                If you resist, their job will be to “take you into custody” — which is  a

euphemism for seizing you, handcuffing you, and taking you to jail against your

will.

                At this point, it will be obvious that the regulation’s purpose is to force

barbers to charge at least $8 — not by persuasion, but with a gun.

EVERY government activity is an exercise in force. Every government activity is designed to compel its citizens to engage in behavior that they may or may not choose to do voluntarily under the threat of violence. There is nothing voluntary about it. While some may say that they have no problem with paying taxes and support the way that the government spends its money, the threat of force does not disappear, only the appearance of it.

Every time a citizen says “there ought to be a law…” or “government ought to provide…” what they are saying is that people should be forced under the threat of violence to behave in a certain way or fund a program, whether they are willing or not.

This is not to say that some programs are unworthy or have poor intentions. The National Endowment for the Arts is a good example. Art is a wonderful thing. Every civilized society has artists and patrons of the arts. I, myself, love art, theater, and music. Does the worthiness of art in society justify using the threat of violence against its citizenry in order to fund it? I think not. The vast majority of government activities, from patronage of the arts, to funding of scientific research, to aid to the unfortunate can be handled voluntarily, and done so more effectively than government. Just because the intention is good or the program is worthy does not justify the use of government to deliver it.

Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating anarchy. As a Christian, and even as a rational human being, I do see that there is a role for governments. The Apostle Paul speaks of submission to secular governments.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whosoever rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement upon themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also a matter of conscience.- Romans 13: 1-5

Do notice what Paul says government does! Government is the institution charged with maintaining civil order. There is a place for the sword of government in encouraging good behavior and punishing evil behavior. Laws prohibiting theft, rape, murder, fraud, and such are necessary for a civil society. Enforcement of these laws do require use of the sword. Paul did not charge government with the duty of providing alms, subsidizing art, or managing economic activity.

While there are certainly anarchistic arguments for private production of public goods (see The Market for Liberty) I would still argue that it is acceptable for the government to provide TRUE public goods. These are services that benefit ALL of society. These public goods would include roads and infrastructure, police and fire services, national defense, and a fair and impartial judicial system.

While these functions are exercises in force, they can be justified. Maintaining civil order is absolutely necessary. True public goods are absolutely necessary. While there may be the occasional dissenter, any rational person would have no problem contributing to the maintenance of these public goods nor would they dissent to allowing government to maintain reasonable civil order.

The question the citizenry must ask when asking government to do something is “would I personally put a gun to the head of someone to enforce compliance or fund it?” The politician should ask the same question when voting to create or fund a government program or pass a regulation. If you are not willing to get your own hands dirty to pull the trigger yourself, is it right to delegate that to an intermediary (i.e.; the government)?

Election Postmortem

For many of us, the 2012 elections were a great disappointment.  Economic growth is not keeping up with population growth. Unemployment has been over 8% for the entire length of President Obama’s term. No President has ever been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2%. We are indeed in the worst economy since the Great Depression, and that includes the Carter years! George HW Bush was tossed out of office on the basis of an economy that was in much better shape than the one we currently endure. When looking at the internal data of the polls and the state of the economy, it was not unreasonable to believe that the GOP would win this election in a wave.

Romney ran a campaign based upon a good economic plan and a good record in business. His success at turning around failing ventures was exemplary. President Obama had no record to run on. He could not point to any accomplishments during his first term that would merit re-election. His one signature accomplishment, Obamacare, still remains unpopular with the American people. It was forced down the throat of the American people on a partisan vote. His entire campaign was reduced to scathing negative attacks and distortions on his opponent. His entire rationale for his re-election during the campaign was to create an irrational fear of the other guy. He offered nothing to make us believe that the next four years would be any different than the last four years. How then could this incompetent amateur get re-elected? What mistakes did the Republican Party make that allowed this to happen and what changes should they make going forward?

First, the Republican Party needs to differentiate between partisanship and principle. The American people have said time and time again that they are tired of the partisan bickering. They want the two parties to work together to solve the problems facing the country. This is a pipe dream, but not for the reasons that you might think. The failure to work together on the big issues facing our nation has more to do with deeply held philosophical differences on how to achieve a goal than it does over a desire to “one up” the other guy.

Politics has been treated over the past 24 years as more of a competitive sport rather than service to country. There is a red team and a blue team. Each side is more concerned with “winning” the next election and thus increasing their share of power. Each side will peck away at the opposition in an attempt to bring down the other side rather than doing what is right for their constituents. Die hards on both sides love the “red meat” of demagoguery, ridicule, and destruction. When those engaged in political discourse focus on these things, while it may be food for the base, it turns off the independents and frustrates more and more Americans. There are so many Americans who are eligible to vote who choose not to out of frustration.  Many believe that there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties because all they do is engage in partisan attack over small things.

The mistake Republicans made over the last four years was failing to articulate their principles and dived straight into the mud. Middle America was paying attention when Rush Limbaugh stated that he wanted Barack Obama to fail. Mitch McConnell’s statement that the goal of the GOP was to make Obama a one term President did not go unnoticed. This kind of rhetoric works well with the base, but makes the party seem petty and personal. It gave Obama the opening he needed to blame the GOP for his failures. Rather than positioning themselves as the loyal opposition standing on principle, it made them seem like their goal was to bring down the President, no matter the cost.  Now to be fair to Rush Limbaugh, he has explained the context of his statement. He wanted SOCIALISM to fail, not Obama per se. 

The Republican Party needs to articulate their principles in opposition. This means that they need to offer alternative legislation to accomplish the goals that are set before them. When they stand in opposition, they need to explain to the American people why. They need to avoid incendiary language and personal attacks. They should praise the intention of the legislation, but explain how the approach they oppose won’t work or has unintended consequences that are unacceptable. By differentiating themselves on principle rather than partisanship they can stay true to themselves yet not alienate a large section of the electorate that they need to attract.

Secondly, the Tea Party elements of the GOP need to rebrand themselves. The principles of the Tea Party are valid and mainstream. There is nothing extreme about balanced budgets, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and opposition to socialism. They are right to oppose the moderate elements or RINOs in the GOP. Where they have made mistakes is in pushing the wrong candidates to carry their banner. Christine O’Donnell came across as a lightweight. Sharon Angle was also painted as a lightweight. Akin and Murdock’s comments about rape were not only insulting, but outright nutty.

The Tea Party just needs to absorb itself into the GOP and stop using that moniker. Fair or not, the brand is tainted.  While the values of the Tea Party are mainstream, the brand has been irreparably harmed and labeled as racist and hateful. This narrative is not fair, but the independents we are trying to attract have bought it. It is possible to drop the name without compromising the values.

Finally, the GOP needs to stop the romance with moderates and neo-cons. The future of the GOP is libertarianism. Freedom is an easy value to market. It comes across as hypocritical to say we want government to keep out of your economic life when you tell them that we want government to interfere in your personal choices. Freedom means that sometimes people will make choices we don’t like. Deal with it.  If the GOP wants to win elections, they need to offer a true small government candidate, not a Democrat lite.  This means we need to nominate either a true conservative or a libertarian. We need to offer the American people a clear alternative. We can still be pro-life, but we need to make sure that we allow for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or the mother’s life. That is reasonable. Articulate the choice as freedom vs. big government and freedom will win.

I am sure that there are other things that can be said, but these are some initial thoughts.

Making Sense of the Debates

We have now sat through three Presidential debates and one Vice-Presidential debate. After each debate the news media, pundits and focus groups will haggle over who won. Facebook becomes swarmed with memes from partisans trying to tear down the opposition for some gaffe or quote some zinger from their own candidate. Again, they will trumpet how their candidate won the debate.

It seems to me that all of this back and forth on who won is using the wrong standard of measurement. We want to score it like we would score a high school debate competition or even a presentation of a case before a jury. When I hear all of this analysis I can’t help but think of the movie line where the hero says something along the lines of “he thinks we are playing chess, but I’m playing poker.” Elections are not decided by debate points, but by persuading voters to show up at the polls and cast their vote for your candidate.

There are three kinds of elections, the base election, the choice election, and the referendum election. If we are to correctly analyze a candidates’ debate performance and determine a “winner” then we must also correctly analyze the type of election that we are facing. The base election is when the country is closely divided. Generally things are going well, and the winner will be determined by which candidate gets their core constituencies out to the polls to vote. A choice election is where the country is at a crossroads and needs to determine which direction the nation will go over the next term. A referendum election is where an incumbent has not performed well or has performed well and needs to persuade the voters that he deserves another term in office.

I would categorize then 1994 midterms as a base election. Clinton had defeated George HW Bush in 1992, which had upset conservative voters. Clinton failed to reach 50% of the popular vote and had tried to govern from the left. This energized conservatives who managed to seize control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. The job of a candidate in a base election is to energize their base voters. Republicans want to energize conservatives and Democrats want to energize liberals. When analyzing a debate in a base election, we must look at the effect the candidates performance had on their core constituency. Did the candidate come out aggressive? Did he score some hits and zingers? Debate points are not as important as how energized the base is.

The 1996 Dole/Clinton election would be an example of a choice election. Clinton had been soundly defeated in the 1994 midterms and was facing a GOP that was chomping at the bit to regain the White House. Clinton was very astute and pivoted to the center following his defeat and was successfully able to frame the 1996 election as a choice between a forward looking Bill Clinton, building a bridge to the 21^st century, or a return to the policies of the past. The fact that Republicans nominated Bob Dole didn’t help much to dissuade the electorate of this narrative. In the debates, Clinton continued to provide a clear narrative of where he wanted to take the country in comparison to his opponent. In choice elections, the traditional debate scoring model is more important. The candidates must be able to clearly articulate a vision and direction for the nation as well as persuade voters that his is the correct course.

The 1980 Reagan/Carter election is an example of a referendum election. In these election years, the incumbent is challenged by either a domestic crisis (such as a bad economy), a foreign policy crisis (such as the Iranian Hostage Crisis), or both. Carter was presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression (and yes, though politicians love to use that phrase, the late 70’s and first couple years of the 80’s have that honor) while American citizens were held hostage in Iran for over a year. The nation did not want another 4 years of Jimmy Carter, but they were uncertain about Reagan. Carter spent much of his campaign maligning Reagan as a cowboy and reckless, both economically and in foreign affairs. In a referendum election, the debate serves as means for the challenger to show himself to the electorate as an acceptable alternative. Winning on points is irrelevant. The question voters are asking is “Do I feel comfortable with the challenger as President of the United States.” Reagan showed himself to be intelligent, reasonable, and Presidential. He was not the warmonger that Carter tried to make the electorate believe. Reagan won in a landslide.

In looking at the debate performances over the past month, I have heard partisans on both sides try to analyze who won on points. What we need to do is analyze it based upon the kind of election we are facing. This is base election to a point. Obama realizes that his only hope is to energize his own base and depress Republican turnout. This is NOT a choice election. Obama has failed to lay out an agenda for a second term. He has not provided a reason to believe that the next four years will be any different than the last four years. He has spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to define his opponent as a greedy, heartless, corporate executive who cares only about the rich. He has attached Romney on Bain Capital, his taxes, and he has tried to link Romney to George W Bush.

This is not a choice election. It is partially a base election, but it is mostly a referendum election. 56% of Americans believe that we are on the wrong track. The U-6 unemployment figures have been in double digits since he took office. He has increased the debt to $16 Trillion. We have suffered a downgrade in our nation’s credit rating for the first time in history. The fiscal cliff is looming with no credible plan from the President. The recent attack on our embassy in Libya, leaving 4 Americans dead, including our ambassador, has left many of us scratching our heads, wondering if our President is up to the job. By and large, the American electorate has decided that the want a change in the White House.

In the debate, Mitt Romney had to answer the question, “Is Romney and acceptable alternative.” In the first debate, Romney established himself as credible on the economy. He appeared Presidential, showed himself to be a caring and compassionate person, and dispelled months of negative attacks by the Obama campaign. In the second and third debates, Obama performed better, but did nothing to change the new narrative that Romney is a credible potential President. While Obama may have won that third debate on points, it doesn’t matter when analyzed from this perspective. Romney accomplished what he needed to do. He showed himself to be intelligent and capable. He has a plan to revive the economy. While not as experienced as Obama on foreign policy, he showed himself capable of handling the job. Romney accomplished what he needed to do. Obama’s job in these debates was to disqualify Romney from office. He failed to do that. By this measure Romney won all the debates. It is about votes, not points. Of course we will see come November 6 who is right.