Posts Tagged ‘Tea Party’

Where do You Suppose?

October 14, 2013

I keep working, thankfully. Taxes keep being withheld from my income. Presumably it goes to the government which has legislated that it be so.

But, the government is “shut down”.

Apparently my input isn’t enough to keep it running.

Make the government smaller. We’ll both be on the same page.

Advertisements

Grassley Town Hall – Vinton IA

January 12, 2012

This afternoon, about sixteen of us were able to participate in a town hall meeting with our own Senator Grassley in Vinton Iowa, at the City Hall. Senator Grassley was actually fifteen minutes early and eager to hear input from his constituents, in spite of the fact that the day was blustery and we have had the first significant snow fall of the season. He had evidently kept his schedule all day, in spite of the weather. At times visibility was poor, because of the blowing snow. We thank the Senator for his dedication and his commitment to visit us in all ninety-nine Iowa counties every year.

I will try to relate the various speakers intent (as best I remember).

The first man to engage Senator Grassley had his attention before the official start time for the meeting. He asked about  some legislation for the use of natural gas as motor vehicle fuel and also about the potential for the Keystone pipeline project, that hopefully should allow Canadian Oil to flow to refineries in Houston. The pipeline query reflected, I think, the question that most thinking people are pondering; why not run a short pipeline to North Dakota and build a new refinery? The Senator related a pragmatic answer. It is easier to build a 3000 mile long pipeline than it is to face environmentalist obstructionism in court over the construction of a new refinery. He quoted a statistic that I can’t recall exactly, but the gist is that we have a lot fewer refineries than we used to, doing the same job, because it is easier to ad capacity to an existing refinery than to fight the environmental obstructionists in court.

The second speaker was a man who represented himself as a small businessman with thirty years worth of entrepreneurship behind him. I think he intimated that he had four or five employees at various times. He wanted to tell the Senator that he had come to the conclusion that Congress kept demonstrating an addiction to spending all our money and asking us to “pony up” more. He wanted to communicate that he had concluded the only way to get the government under control was to starve it. Therefore, he said, though he would like to come out with a lot of new endeavors/products that instead he will do his best to see that he has zero tax liability related to his efforts.

As I listened to him, I thought of the statistics that say that corporate America is flush with cash, but is sitting on it, because of uncertainty in the actions of the government. I thought also about the fact that I filed an unemployment claim on Tuesday, for the third time in the last two years. This in spite of the fact that I am a highly qualified electrical engineer with extensive experience managing teams in high-risk startup companies. The “occupy” movement folks look at this statistic and conclude that we need to get the government to straighten it out by legislating a redistribution of wealth. I look at it and conclude that the government needs to get the hell out of the way. If it did, the entrepreneur who was speaking to Senator Grassley, would see profit for his efforts. He would be motivated to do what comes naturally to him. He would happily pay taxes on his increase. We would all be a lot better off.

A fellow from the local rural electrical coop thanked the senator for going to bat for them on a financing initiative, but was careful to point out that the transaction did not add to the national debt, because it paid back more than was borrowed.

I can appreciate the validity of such an arrangement for a profitable rural electrical coop, if not for the likes of a company like Solandra who had no real prospects for profitability.

My daughter brought a question to the Senator, expressing dismay at the illegal use of “recess appointments” by the Obama administration to instantiate various bureaucrats to serve his purposes, bypassing the Constitutionally-mandated approval by Congress. Senator Grassley told us that he had hand delivered letter to the Attorney General for a judgment on the matter. The short story is that the legal department of the Attorney General’s office sided with the White House. (1)  Are we surprised? Senator Grassley is the ranking Republican on the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. Yet, since the Republican party is not in power in the Senate, He is effectively unable to call the White House to account. We either need to fix this in November, or We the People need to find a way to demand an account before then.

Finally, another man and myself each raised questions about counter-terrorism section of the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  I have noted a lot of Internet traffic, asserting that the act has gutted our Constitutional rights to due process. The other fellow seemed to be settled that this assertion was correct. My own question was that I had read the bill, and it seemed to me the section in question went out of it’s way to reassure that American citizens were not normally subject to it’s provisions: look in particular at Subtitle D, Section 1021 (e).

I wanted to get the senator’s opinion about this legislation. I believe our elected representatives thought their assertions that their intent was not to change the law as it applied to citizens was good enough. However, Senator Grassley did point out a case of an American citizen participating with some German operatives to perform sabotage on American soil during World War II. Their discovery resulted in the the American being handled, and eventually executed, as an enemy combatant, along with his German counterparts. Therefore, I suppose, there is some precedent for denying due process to American citizens. That horse, apparently, is already out of the barn.

Somewhere in the mix, the Senator talked about his investigation into the “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation by the Attorney General’s organization and the resultant murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by one of those same weapons. It seems clear that lies have been uncovered. Still, no real accounting has occurred. Along the same vein and interspersed in the entire interchange was an attitude that was exemplified by the T-shirt one patriot was wearing: “Anyone but Obama in 2012”. My wife (and several others) expressed to Senator Grassley her dismay that it seemed no one could successfully hold the Obama administration to account on any subject, not to the will of the people, not to the Constitution, and not to criminal law.

So to my wife’s question: “What can we do?”. Senator Grassley advocated as much involvement as one can muster; contacting representatives, letters to the editor, getting friends involved, participation at the local level, etc.

We would add prayer. We need to be consistently enlisting the aid of the Sovereign of the Universe. He hears, and He cares.  This week, I read something that made me think.  If I don’t pray like it matters to me, why should it matter to God?

 

 

1)  http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-01-08/Grassley-recess-appointment-Obama/52457596/1

2)  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Taking the Beach – Heroes Needed

December 4, 2011

It’s hard to blame Herman Cain for bowing out of his presidential bid, given the attacks that have been leveled against him. Humor me for a minute. Whatever your opinion is, assume for the moment that Mr. Cain has been absolutely truthful. Naive, perhaps, but truthful. In that case, here is the decision: forge ahead, ignoring the hurt that these attacks impose on family, or admit the cost is just too high for a man who values family first. To stay in, he would have to be convinced beyond doubt that another could not do the job that needed to be done and that the stakes were worth sacrificing his own family to save other’s families. I say again, from his point of view, it’s hard to blame him.

That sacrificial choice, however, exemplifies the candidate Tea Party adherents think they are looking for. I have been in that camp. By and large, we have thought we needed a candidate who is able to stand against the withering fire of a ruthless enemy while we cheer them on – safely in the background. Think of the soldiers who fought on from D-Day, paving the way to eventually stop Hitler’s domination of Europe and crimes against humanity – those are is the kind of heroes needed in this hour, if America is to survive as a Constitutional Republic.

But, as I have watched the progressive machine go first after Sarah Palin and now Herman Cain using the well-rehearsed tactics of Saul Alinsky, I wonder who will be next to draw their fire. The stakes are high. The opposition is relentless. Whether our children will know a life of liberty remains to be determined. Here is what I know: until “We the People” develop the kind of sacrificial resolve that our fathers, uncles, and grandfathers showed that day against evil on the beach at Normandy, we will just see more of what we have been getting.

If we think we are going to put any candidate in the White House who is going to set things right and allow us to go back to our own business as usual, we are telling ourselves a fairy tale. We can’t prevail by sending our lone nominee up the beach in our stead. We will stand and solve our problems together, or divided we will fall in defeat. Ultimately get the government we are willing to accept. Look to 2 Chronicles 7:14 for the power to get started. Keep seeking until the direction is clear.

 

We’re all in this Together!

November 4, 2011

I was dumbfounded as I watched an interchange between a pair of conservative activists today. One of these persons is known to me as one who frequently stands on the “I stand with Israel” soapbox. The other activist (whom I don’t know) was pointedly declining a “connection” with the first because of his views about Israel. Rather than try to capture the essence of the interchange, just let me repost it as a quote:

‘Sorry bro, can’t connect with folks who “Stand with Israel”. If you stood with Jews instead of Zionists I’d had no quams, but the state of Israel has helped us into EVERY illegal war we’ve had since WWII. Deprogram what public schools taught ya and re-learn in the light of truth… MY country is America and my Constitution says NOTHING about Israel.’

Now, if you were to consistently read what I write, you will see that I come from a faith-based perspective. My position on Israel is founded on this proclamation of God to Abraham:

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.” (Genesis 12:3)
and many other passages that expand on this certainty. Not to mention the fact that our Saviour Jesus came through the line of David, as this passage in Genesis foretells. I have to assume that God knew what He was doing, making this promise to Abraham.
Even if the modern nation of Israel is mostly secular, I have a hard time believing that God is done keeping his promises related to the descendants of Abraham.
Perhaps I would blow this off as one individual who is “wound a little too tight” if it weren’t for the barrage of anti-semitic comments coming out of the “occupy wall street” movement. ( A movement, by the way, which really seems to need someone to vilify.)
I also understand that without the Biblical imperative to see the children of Abraham from the perspective of the Creator, those who don’t share my spiritual foundation have little motivation to “stand with Israel”.
Still, for the life of me, I can’t come up with a single instance in which Israel as a nation “helped” us into various conflicts. At a minimum, this seems a pretty negative view of history. My own observation is that since World War II, most conflicts that Israel has faced, she has faced alone and against formidable odds. Oh, maybe we have had some input into telling them how to manage their business, but other than that, what? We have profited from selling them a few jet fighters.
I know two things about this argument. First, if we conservatives don’t look for common ground and ask the question ‘What can we do to serve one another and advance our common goals?’ Then we will certainly lose, for “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Second, God’s Word always accomplishes that which He sent it to do; I would therefore rather be on the blessing side of His promise to Abraham.

Couldn’t Have Said it Better!

June 9, 2011

Check out this excellent article by Michael Youssef about the proper functions of the Church and Government:  What Would Jesus Cut?

The Truth will Out!

March 15, 2011

A while back, I wrote a blog post [1] primarily to point out that conservative parents were funding a concerted attack on their own values. This travesty occurs simply because they send their children to public school. The appearance of children in public school results in the hiring of public school teachers. A high percentage of public school teachers are members of the National Education Association. These teachers pay dues to the NEA. The NEA uses these dues to advance liberal political causes. Liberal politicians support the NEA.

That post brought me about two weeks of grief from a commenter who had made a career of working on the other side of this issue in fairly high places. But, by way of vindication, I am providing a link to a post on maggiesnotebook.com [2]. Embedded in that post is a video of a speech by Bob Chanin, retiring National Education Association (NEA) General Council. He makes my point in a way I never could have dreamed, while collecting the applause of a huge crowd of NEA members (‘teachers’). I encourage you to watch it.  Decide for yourself what your money is buying you.

[1] http://inclinedright.com/2010/11/05/promise-from-nikita-kruschev/

[2] http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/

ID to Vote? Why not?

January 29, 2011

Matt Strawn, Chairman of The Republican Party of Iowa reported in his latest email newsletter that the vote on Iowa House bill hf95 went strictly down party lines. That is, all the Republicans voted for the bill and all the Democrats voted against it. Since the Republicans have a majority in the House, the bill is now headed to the Senate.

Iowa HF95, in a nutshell, proposes that precinct officials require voters to present identification. Now every citizen who takes his citizenship seriously knows there are voter registration requirements to help curb voter fraud. We all want our voice, as is our right. Unfortunately, some want to have more of a voice than is their allotted share.

This bill seems RIGHT to me. If I want to vote, why shouldn’t I have some proof that I am who I say I am?  In my small community, the polling officials eventually learn to recognize most of the voters, and the casual banter just “feels right”.  But that is not the norm in big-city precincts.  We hear about voter fraud every election. I read through this bill. The language makes it clear that anyone showing up without ID can cast a provisional ballot, the same way he or she can if they failed to register. If it checks out, and the vote matters, it gets counted. Some of you Democrats are going to have to explain the unanimous Democrat vote against this bill to me.  Because I’m thinking in my usual obvious vein: “What does a Democrat have to gain by preventing any but the rightful voters from having their say?”

Promise from Nikita Khrushchev

November 5, 2010

My analysis of a blog entry I read today, from Alyson Klein at Education Week, leads me to the expectation that the membership of the National Education Association (NEA) is disappointed at the outcome of the election after they invested $40M to influence the outcome for Democrats. [1]

Union teachers dominate the public school system.  These teachers exert ideological influence over children for far more total hours than parents. Since most people send their students to public school, conservatives ought to consider the implications of alignment of the NEA with the “progressive” movement toward bigger government.

If one generalizes, liberal thinking dominates academia. This bent is evident to anyone who has pursued a bachelor’s degree while trying to hold on to a conservative viewpoint. A young man or woman who enters higher education will usually not be swayed from his or her religious faith or political ideology if indeed they are personal convictions. If those views are only vaguely recognized as parental preferences, the ideas will likely not stand the test of twelve to sixteen years of relentless contrary indoctrination.

Don’t be surprised, conservatives, that the country keeps moving to the left.   What can we do?

Remember those inalienable rights? They come with enumerated responsibilities. Responsibility for education of children belongs to the parents:

Proverbs 22:6 – Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

A parent may delegate some work to a teacher. The parent may not delegate the responsibility:

Deuteronomy 11:18-21 – Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land the LORD swore to give your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.

To sum up these ideas, if one wants children to hold on to the views of the parents, implement a determined and proactive program of training at home. Personally, I strongly advocate home schooling. The children will end up better educated, and there will be less liberal programming to counter. Adding injury to insult, census data indicates the average cost of elementary and secondary education in the United States for the 2006/7 School year approached $10,000 per student ($8769 per student in Iowa). [2] With that kind of money, home school parents could load the kids on a plane and study art at the Louvre.  Conservatives are paying big to have their progeny indoctrinated in progressivism.

The view of the NEA is that progressives are more likely to throw money at the “broken” education system. Their support of Democrats is a reciprocal arrangement.  Just follow the money, there’s no mystery.

I leave you with a quote from Nikita Khrushchev:

“I once said, “We will bury you,” and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.”

[1]  http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2010/11/the_national_education_associa.html?intc=mvsh

[2]  (http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf)

Attack Ads from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

October 10, 2010

I received a series of political fliers in the mail this week that have offended my passion for truth. The ads say “Brad Zaun pledged to give tax breaks to companies that ship American jobs overseas. And he took a break from paying his federal taxes on time.

The first claim is based on Zaun’s signature on a “pledge” authored by Americans for Tax Reform. The attack ad makes an unfounded claim about the pledge. Let me quote the pledge Zaun endorses (along with many other conservatives):

ATR’s Pledge

I will:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

That’s it. In total. The whole thing. The Democrat ad, of course, was very careful to only reference this pledge by a fine-print acronym. The prototype for this attack was launched against Congressman Charles Djou (R-HI) back in the Spring of this year.1 The claim that this pledge is somehow equivalent to shipping jobs overseas has been debunked over and over again.2 If anything, it is the Progressive-Democrat agenda that is destroying the economy. High taxes are shutting down American companies, rendering them uncompetitive with their foreign counterparts. I leave the final analysis of the impact of signing the pledge to the reader’s common sense.

In a further assertion, the ad states that Zaun “took a break from paying his taxes on time”, and “skipped paying his house payments”. He is in pretty good company. Millions of Americans are out of work. Small business is struggling to survive. This is simply more evidence that the economy is “in the tank” under the ministration of the current Democrat political machine and a long-ensconced tax-and-spend Congress. Would you “skip” making your mortgage payment by choice?

I am trying to help the small business where I work stay afloat in this difficult economy. I recognize that my continued employment is tied to the success of the company. But, the government is strangling the life out of American business. Here in America, we all depend on business for our personal livelihood. If the current trend continues, many more will be having trouble paying their taxes and making their mortgage payments. As for me, Zaun’s signature on this pledge is just one more reason for me to vote for him and give Leonard Boswell the boot. Look at Zaun’s campaign web site.3 Common sense prevails there, just like it does at your house. I think the fact that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee can’t front any arguments of substance proves they don’t have anything to offer America except further destruction.

1. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com

2. http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-false-tax-attack/

3. http://www.bradzaun.com