Why I am a Republican and The Challenge for Conservative Leadership

I've been asked a handful of times why I consider myself a Republican even after the Bush administration's denial of fiscal conservatism and the party not representing the base for an extended period of time. It's quite simple, really, and I'll answer it in the format of the Michigan GOP's 2008 tear-off calendar...

I am a Republican because...in the 90's, my single mother worked 3 jobs, sometimes 4, and had the opportunity to work as much as she wanted and, thus, provide the lifestyle she wanted for herself and her children. This was made possible by Ronald Reagan (fundamentally changed America) and John Engler (unemployment was down to the lowest point ever under his leadership: 3%). These two leaders defied the establishment Left, reduced the burden of government, and freed all Americans to be as productive and wealthy as they wanted to. While Reagan's federal plans took longer to implement and longer to fade, Engler's were more direct and closer to home, making them quicker to effect change. In my life I have witnessed the success of these plans and their model of 'Opportunity + Freedom = Prosperity = Liberty;' I have also watched as the Left and their ideas infected both parties and have brought this nation, the one that accomplished so much in my childhood and prospered as no other nation in history, to its knees before the world.

The combined destruction wrought by the economic policies of Bill Clinton, Jennifer Granholm, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama is a terrible crime against the people of this nation and my state. Clinton's policies, held off to an extent by Newt Gingrich and his allies in Congress, inevitably have altered, and in the altering, tangled, the economic framework that brought our people so much liberty in the past.

Now, Michigan rots in its longest and gravest economic depression ever. Detroit, once the crown jewel of the republic, sits with 44.8% of its citizens unemployed. Of our state as a whole, more than one out of five people do not have a job. Two million, two hundred and ninety thousand of our neighbors, family members, friends, and former coworkers have been thrown into personal indignity by a government-run, government-decided, government-dominated system that does not work.

When we do find hours, we grab them and change our schedules and activities around them. It really is a fundamental change from the reality my mother raised my brother and I in through the 1990's. In the business she owns now, she's had to cut six jobs, six livelihoods, during this 'still-fragile recovery.' Our new reality makes us beholden to scarce work and, thus, less free to pursue our own interests. This government-altered reality seems to hunt down liberty and exterminate it wherever it can be found.

Instead of being enabled through opportunity and freedom provided by free markets, the elimination and over-regulation of those markets disables us and makes into pawns, bottom feeders, regardless of our level of income. While we run into trouble with our mortgages, property taxes, car payments, college bills, and utility charges, our elected 'leaders' continue to spend and spend and spend and spend, pursuing personal and political goals. They, then, seek to repeat the mistakes of the past and 'help' the economy by distracting us with a nice new paved road or train rides to Disney Land. Historical changes for the absolute worse just like this one repeatedly display the challenge for conservative leadership, a challenge met only somewhat by conservative leaders during the times of Engler and Reagan.

Conservatives have to find and nominate leaders who can build systems that are self-terminating when they've outlived their respect for liberty, but are sustainable in spite of the Left's attempts to bend them to their own devices. That's up to every one of us to ensure these systems get put in place for every one of our 513,000 elected offices. I, a lonesome blogger, dare you to prove your commitment to our principles and ensure that this kind of real change happens in your community. We can bring back that level of opportunity, freedom, prosperity, and liberty that both you and I have experienced in the past. It wont be easy, but think of the daily struggle of our troops who preserve this simple opportunity for us: we ought to do right by them and seize the day.

Share

I was asked why I oppose the public option and what I would do to reform the MediTwins...

The public option would totally work for liberal goals...but I disagree with the goals and the metrics used to get to those goals.

The public option's main idea is to work as a 'baseline competitor.' For instance: do you seriously use the post office for anything? I dont. But its the 'crap' version of UPS and FedEx...Obama's logic with the public option seems to be that, if we've got that, the rest of the insurance companies will automatically be more efficient. Okay......no one's going to disagree with that 'efficiency' principle (1) and (2) the system already does that BUT FOR government roadblocks (like insurance companies not being able to sell between states...which makes regulation of them by the federal government directly unconstitutional right now, but who cares about that document anyway :( ).

Thus my disagreement comes: it costs way too much (it takes all the costly inefficiencies in the current companies, multiplies them, and centralizes them under one forced-increase-funded source...thus 'breaking' society like Medicare and Medicaid are now)...

...and it will inevitably expand into nationalized health care given the support single payer has from lunatics in DC (Historical example: AMTRAK forced out all other passenger train systems until Reagan cut off their tax$ support, thus realizing higher prices paid by riders...by then, traveling by train had gone culturally 'out of style' and few use it anymore...choosing cars and hurting the environment/whatever- same concept w/ public option).

If you want to lower the cost of medical care, you have to get rid of the 1940's concept of insurance. 21st century dental insurance is a perfect example: Aspen Dental in Holland, MI charges $30 for a cleaning. Small business dentists charge $60 per cleaning and have much more profit than Aspen. Aspen will not accept insurance while 'local' dentists draw those with insurance. Why? If you have to pay out of pocket, you care about the cost; having insurance with a set premium eliminates that care. This injects competition much faster than a MASSIVE and EXPANDING and HISTORIC and WHATEVER government program.

Working within the current concept of insurance, %-based premiums would have the same effect (to a smaller and slower degree) in the private sector as eliminating insurance completely (something we shouldnt do...free markets and all). If I have to pay 25% of my Allegra-D, I'd pay like $30; if I had to pay 25% of the generic, I'd spend $2.50 for the same thing. Right now I have a flat $5 premium for my script insurance...so I'm going to go with the hugely expensive brand version because I dont care about the cost. %-based premiums simply provide an incentive to lower costs across the board with little or no impact on Research and Development.

Second on the Public Option, research and development will DIE as private corps start to lower prices to the self insured. In a WAM BAM DO IT NOW government solution, theyll cut the most expendable thing: R&D. This means a world-wide dark age for pharmaceuticals (i.e. end up going with Galen's pre-Christ research in the 1700's...a dark age in pharma). No new drugs, no new medicines advertised on tv, nothing. (The US produces 85-90% of treatments/drugs in the world. Second is UK, third Japan)
_____

To reform M/M: first of all, privatize Social Security and put Medicaid back under the SSA. It was stupid to separate it in the 70's and has been an abject, dismal failure. When that's done, the people that take it over will immediately move to personal medical savings accounts for those under 30, and pay out for those who have paid in already. Third, I'd make Social Security optional so it and its new Healthcare Department have to compete with private life insurance companies...like it did in the 50's when it 'worked' (read: lost to private insurance co's...until we outlawed them. Reagan's 1964 GOP convention speech references SS failures).

For Medicare: take all of it and put it under the states. If you crazies really want wealth redistributed from those 'rich' places like Michigan to those 'poor' places like Texas (as it is now lol), youd continue the contributions. However, I wouldnt do that...let the states do it all. If they run it into the ground, it'll be much more public and much easier for people to fix them. It was public in the 60's when they ran their own welfare states into the ground...and you can hide it much easier in Washington...thus the political elite put it in Washington in the 70's...

There will also be more innovation in improving the system due to having 50 different ways of doing it. A large number of cases along a normal distribution works much better for improving systems than a SINGLE NATIONAL FIST way of doing things (see picture...the center or average quality/cost, in this case, will 'chase' the top dawgs toward higher quality and lower cost to the right)

...then we're talking about the first book I'm going to begin writing next year...on how governments attempt to create a 'present' (something that doesnt exist) within which to operate and fix things.

Share

The House that Ronald Reagan Built

Mitt Romney said that the 'Heart and soul of the Republican Party belongs in the house that Ronald Reagan built.' A very, very good declaration of sentiments, but might I add a slight suggestion: The heart and soul of the Republican party belongs in the family room of the house that Ronald Reagan built.

Might I ask you a question for thought: what does the house that Ronald Reagan built look like? Is it a house of wings, each unto themselves? Are the three wings supposed to fight and bicker, slamming doors left, right, and center? What about all the heating costs endured by allowing the cold, liberal winds to scour more outer walls? What happens when, like in 2008, these winds turn into a tempest to challenge the fortitude of the walls?

Surely, then, this house divided against itself will not stand. With the current design, a wing will fail and be torn away by gusts in another direction. If that should happen, a gaping hole through which the warmth of love, family, and freedom will be lost.

When we journeyed out to enjoy the freedoms across this blessed land, we forsook our duty and placed the watch over our house in the hands of lesser men. We allowed them to to tear down that stalwart house Ronald Reagan built and erect this fractured house of conservatism. Last year, we returned from our adventures, but it was too late: the final door had been hung and closed to us.

Right now we knock and knock, yet it is time to take a lesson from those brave frontiersmen that built our country: it's time we journey into the wooded grounds of this neo-shack and build a house Ronald Reagan would be proud of.

Let us model it after Monticello, the torn-down and rebuilt manor of Thomas Jefferson, with rooms, offices, and storage facilities all equal as to be focused on the individual. We will construct it of sturdy logs to remember the birthplace our party's first president, unifier of our nation: Abraham Lincoln. We'll line the foyer and main hall with copper busts of all our great Republican presidents from Lincoln and Grant, to TR and Coolidge, to Eisenhower and, resting above all, Reagan. Upon the walls throughout our house, we will carve the names of every American soldier and civilian killed in war. In addition to the traditional, we must add the many modern amenities afforded to us by the innovation of we the people.

We'll install solar panels and windmills made by free, unsubsidized Green Capitalists and hire hardworking and honest youth to care for the grounds and clean the halls with Greenlist chemicals, fertilizers, and sweat off their brows. We'll have no hired security: we will rely on individuals to enter gun safes hidden in the walls and use the contents for protection. If we must have doors, the doors will be open to all with the will and heart to enter.

Above all, this house will be centered around a circular breakfast table. This table will never be, however, a dinner table for we conservatives know that we will always dine basking in the warmth of this, great America's eternal sunrise.

I have faith that this is a house Ronnie would be proud of; for I, being a survivor of his, certainly will be.

My Narrative on the Right to Life

As we all know, I am pro-life and whole life. From conception to a death surrounded by family, we ought to be left to live our lives. What many do not know is that I am different than most of this position. In this post I hope to share with you my unorthodox view of morality, science, progress, and the Right to Life. I feel that, when it comes to the idea of morality, I think many conservatives are wrong. Their intentions, means, foreseen result, and outlook are correct but not their modus operandi when it comes to thought.

I'm not ripping on my fellow members of the Conservative movement, I just would like to express an opposing method of reaching the same result. I think that traditional Christian Conservatism is wholly right, but that the yearning for values that have existed 'before' is wrong. We needn't look to the past to see what to work for; instead, look to faith.

Our faith tells us that He will protect us. God has blessed this country: I think we can all agree upon that. As we progress into the future, does our faith not tell us that 'moralism' will be the end result of all progress? I believe it does.

When you think of "progress," liberals and their religion, Liberalism, probably come to mind. They think that Progressivism (the embracing of their idea of progess) is the 'ditching' of all traditional morality: that this view of morality is parochial and dead and that 'new' moral relativism will come forth. They are dead wrong.

Liberals depend on "educated" scientists to prove their amoralistic points; this isn't happening anymore. RAW SCIENTIFIC FACT proves our case. I'm not talking about the modified, 'global warming' science they adhere to. I'm talking about the facts:

Wikipedia defines life as this:
(you really only have to read the bold parts)

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: being composed of one or more cells
3. Metabolism: : Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of eevolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to Stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

I'll try to keep my responses short...

1. Homeostasis: An endangered lizard in South America dips its tail into water to cool itself off...the unborn relies on his or her mother for warm...kangaroos do also...out of the womb...it's illegal to kill both animals...but not an unborn baby.
2. Organization: Well that's quite obvious...
3. Metabolism: The placenta feeds the baby just like we rely on plants and animals while we're walking and talking.
4. Growth: The 'Stages of Growth' imply that this exists.
5. Adaptation: Stuff that's internalized...like alchohal or tobacco smoke...effect the way the baby grows. Brain probelms and likely alcohalism result from the mother's alcohal comsumption while athsema or cystic fibrosis result from tobacco comsumption.
6. Response to Stimuli: A baby in the zygote state will find the best spot to position itself on the womb's wall, in the embryo state he or she tries to stay 'upright', and a fetus will protect his or her face from a twin's kicks using their hands and forearms.
7. Reproduction: An unborn child may not fulfill the basic requirements of making a new organism, but reproducing cells is basic to the growth: this cannot be denied.

The anti-life people believe in the scientific method and they openly admit it...shouldnt they really get their facts, values, and principles correct before they go pandering to the promiscuous vote...

It just all upholds the position that Liberals and Dems have absolutly no core principles...bright bold colors....our colors are...ummm...red, white, and blue while their's are faded, soggy, and sickly shades of green and pinko-red....

I'm sorry if that last part didnt make much sense...it does to me and it's late.

'Live By The Sword'

A couple nights ago, a male friend and I were watching "Last Samurai" (starring Tom Cruise) randomly blurting out when thoughts came to us. Being that the last time I had seen it was way back when I was an immature and wee lad (well...more of one than I am currently). My brain, then, focused on the historical depiction of post-civil war weaponry and tactics while picking apart the fallacies of the director's depiction of both hosts hostile interaction. I love Japanese history, early politics, the endless possible analysis of Japanese isolation, and the Samurai but I do think, as I mentioned to my friend, that the warrior-culture of Japan made and possibly makes it wise to limit their military and act as their defense forces.

"They really do have a warrior culture, don't they" I remarked across the room; his reply was "Doesn't America also?" The comment sparked a couple seconds of thought where I came to the conclusion that yes, America does have a warrior culture.

Unlike the Japanese and the European Imperial powers that instructed its early leaders, America's war culture is based upon the principle of the Militia. Japan's Samurai were once granted, by the emperor, the right to be the only armed force in Japan. Parallel to this 'right', we, as Americans, are guaranteed a "well-regulated militia" to defend us. There's naturally some fudging to be done when referencing the two as one; but while the samurai could execute civilians for disrespect, the militia were/are civilians. This difference has caused us to understand the cost of war.

I think it was Reagan (it's too late to find the correct quote) that said something to the effect of: "Wars happen when governments underestimate the cost of conflict." This is and will remain forever true. America's militia culture had put us, until the end of the Cold War, on the defensive. We never really followed the Churchillian doctrine of "Free people help others become free." Perhaps our warrior-militia culture told us others had to get their own freedom.

I don't want you to think I'm railing against the Bush administration. Bush's "nation building" initiative was followed by 90% or so of Congress 'way back a few years ago' because this country has lost the principles that are the answer. It is the prevailing political wind in Washington to extend our wealth and resources against the wishes of George Washington's ghost.

It happened to the Brits: they figured that God had blessed them and that they could bless the world. The Brits ended up losing a lot of money and a lot of lives (sounds like Iraq?) and eventually lost their power. Many have discussed it but none have spoken of the warrior-militia culture being lost in this country. Peace through strength...not the expression of strength. Like Sweden in WW2: if we all owned guns, aggressors wouldn't invade us due to their own fear.

America needs to revert back to defense-based fighting. We must lose, though it may be painful, the "revolutionary" rhetoric and actions in our foreign policy. America must conserve freedom at home and abroad for freedom spreads naturally: others will free themselves in due time. We should nurture and help grow the pockets of freedom in the gloom of oppressed nations. There must be a will of freedom to hold on to in order to spread it: we cannot create that will to freedom.

Same Song, Different Verse

There are some that have said that the Conservative Movement is dead. That the Age of Reagan lasted from 1974 to 2008. The interview Hannity did with Newt a few days after McCain's nomination has creeped back into my mind periodically and, now, pesters me to present my thoughts.

Earlier today I laid out the question "Is Conservatism Dead?" on Google. The top few results said, more or less, no...then my eyes dropped to the 'great' Daily Kos (for those that don't know, Daily/Weekly/Monthly/Yearly Kos sessions/publications are horribly sociofascitic to the point of being what one can objectively call Marxist-Leninist).

I do read the Daily Kos once in awhile to get the deformed and fragmented 'scoop' on what the far-left is doing in and to our country. This particular article tosses with 'educated' language a bunch of radical statements attempting to cookie-cutter separate the Movement.

Fascists like the Kos writers like to vainly 'analyze' the Conservative Movement and classify it into 'trends' and 'influences.' Fascists like the Kos writers think that the essence of Conservatism is a conglomeration of political expedients and like individuals (basing their analysis on race, class, faith, and political locale...all of which they deny but one can easily see it).

The facts are that the essence of Conservatism is not something that can be done away with. Conservatism is morality. It is love. It is equality. It is the belief in the one, true God. Conservatism is freedom. The Fascists think if they can politicize what conservatism is, than they can destroy it.

The Nazis and Communists tried this...politicizing of everything from food to religion. Where did it get them? They were thrown onto the ash heap of history by free people everywhere. No matter how many dark days Conservatism saw, it always has risen up to throw off the oppressors. No matter if the darkness lasts for 8 years as in the Wilson administration's case or if it lasts 700 years as with the Scots: Freedom and Justice always bounce back.

What we see today is the same, melodic song of Conservatism, just in a different, softer verse. Reagan said, "I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph." We just have to commit ourselves to playing ever louder.

The Tempting of Conservatism

Before beginning, I have to apologize for the break in the posting routine...it's been a hectic couple of days...
------------------------------
"Government is the problem, not the solution." Ronald Reagan.
This is my personal political principle just as it is for many of you and others around the world.

Government is the problem, not the solution

When the husband of our governor has three assistants; their six-digit salaries funded with workingman's dollars.

Government is the problem, not the solution

When an industry is collapsing and the ruling party just watches it...eating the taxpayers' popcorn and drinking the taxpayers' wine.

Government is the problem, not the solution

When people marry for taxes' sake

Government is the problem, not the solution

When they build dams and decide they hurt salmon and add a $200billion salmon transportation system involving ever-moving trucks and miles of tubing. Now the environmentalists now say to tear it all down.

Government is the problem, not the solution

When the owner of a small business collapses at home, his forehead wrinkled and sagging from stress of the murderous weight of the Single Business Tax.

Government is the problem, not the solution

When ships bottom out in Lake Michigan ports because the federal government decided to pump millions of gallons from the Great Lakes down to the desert.

Government is the problem, not the solution

When politicians create a war with good intentions but horrible conduct until the coming of the Great General

Government is the problem, not the solution

When packs of inner city men are driven by welfare into warfare.

Government is the problem, not the solution

When they spends half a billion dollars of our money on the failed Arab outreach TV station "Alhurra."

Government is the problem, not the solution

When humanity is forced to endure the silent screams of the unborn because five people, thirty years ago thought they could play God.

Government is the problem not the solution

Because governments have never done anything both efficiently and morally correct. Never.
So I ask: why should we trust them with our health care? Why should we not limit their terms and their salaries? Washington is broken. The list above continues infinately. Herbert Hoover said

Every expansion of government in business means that government, in order to protect itself from the political consequences of its errors and wrongs, is driven irresistibly, without peace, to greater and greater control of the nation's press and platform. Free speech does not live many hours after free industry and free commerce die.

This is a true conservative principle. The Tempting of Conservatism comes in the form of the ideology of two men: George W. Bush and John McCain. These men are good conservatives socially. Politically, though, they seek and have sought to redefine what it means to be a conservative.

Government is the problem, not the solution. They are not hostile to the bureaucracy's corrupting influence. They seek not to slash its creeping, strangling vines. The auto, oil, and airline industries are strangled; health care is going: what's next? The call is to resist:

I am first and foremost an Christian. Second, I am an American. Third, a Conservative. Fourth, a Republican. I will never betray my principles, I will never give up my belief in God. Government will not be the master of my thoughts, it will not be the master of my soul. I am not behind John McCain.