STAY HOME AND DON’T VOTE?

NOT! NOT! NOT! NOT! NOT! NOT!

H/T to Thinking in Christ via this post, Worth Reading: Election Edition.

Don’t Trust Your Instincts

By John Stossel (Archive) · Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Simple answers are so satisfying: Green jobs will fix the economy. Stimulus will create jobs. Charity helps people more than commerce. Everyone should vote.

Well, all those instinctive solutions are wrong. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out in “The Fatal Conceit,” it’s a problem that in our complex, extended economy, we rely on instincts developed during our ancestors’ existence in small bands. In those old days, everyone knew everyone else, so affairs could be micromanaged. Today, we live in a global economy where strangers deal with each other. The rules need to be different.

Hayek said: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” (continued here)

Posted in culture, economy | 1 Comment

KEEPING GOVERNMENT CLOSE TO HOME

If you want to, you can call and talk to Delegate Bob Marshall. What is the possibility you can talk to your congressman or U.S. Senator? Well, if your pockets are big, your chances improve. With that in mind, you might want to keep your government small and as close to home as you can manage. In fact, you might want to give Delegate Bob Marshall some help, and you may wish to visit bobmarshall2012.com.

Virginia Light Bulb Bill up Thursday!

Friends,

I’ve got two major legislative updates below. Both bills are very important and we need to contact our delegates on the committees listed below to make sure these bills become a reality. Thank you for taking the time to read through! – Bob

VA Light Bulb Manufacturer and VA vs. EPA/Corp of Engineers

My HB 66 would allow Virginia companies to manufacture and sell incandescent light bulbs only within Virginia despite the Federal ban on incandescent bulbs which will take effect next year. The federal ban was enacted on grounds that fluorescent lights were more cost effective. Under conditions of normal use the fluorescent lights wear out much faster than incandescent ones which are not affected by constant on and off use. (See http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com for problems with CFL bulbs.)

HB 66 will be heard in subcommittee Thursday afternoon, January 26, 2012. Please contact the members of the Labor and Commerce Committee (See below.)

HB 66 will help protect Virginia citizens from possible mercury contamination from incorrect disposal of Compact Fluorescent Bulbs or home accidents which require near hazardous materials treatment. Two hundred and twenty families lost their breadwinner in Winchester, VA when the last American GE plant making Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulbs was shut down in 2010 as a result of the Congressional ban.

These jobs were lost when GE shifted manufacture of the CFL’s out of the country. Lastly, the Federal ban is a 10th amendment issue. Congress should not be telling Virginians what type of light bulbs they should purchase and use. The people of Virginia should be able to choose when it comes to issues such as safety and jobs.

Thanks.

- Delegate Bob Marshall

Commerce & Labor Subcommittee #2

Commerce & Labor Other Members

Virginia vs. EPA Clean Water Act Controls

My HB 67 will ensure that Virginia controls and regulates its non-navigable waters. The bill will be heard Thursday, January 26, 2012, in the 7-West Conference Room of the General Assembly Building. This legislation is to help prevent cases where farmers and other property owners have been buried under EPA or Corps of Engineers regulations as a result of a large puddle or very small normally dry pond on their property because of the Migratory Bird Rule (also known as the” glancing goose test”) which in essence says if your property gets wet enough at any time of the year for a migratory bird to see its reflection, then the EPA can regulate that property as a wetland.

Passage of my HB 67 will ensure that this sort of Federal Government micro management does not occur. Please ask members of the Subcommittee (below) to support HB 67.

Thanks.

- Delegate Bob Marshall

House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Chesapeake Subcommittee

Posted in Delegate Bob Marshall, Legislative Updates | 1 Comment

DELEGATE BOB MARSHALL DOES WHAT A LEGISLATOR SHOULD DO

Wonder about the primary task of a statesman? Then watch Delegate Bob Marshall, and check out bobmarshall2012.com. Marshall sees his primary task as protecting our rights. Here is an example.

ALERT: Stop Indefinite Detention of American Citizens!

Under the recent passed 2012 federal Defense Authorization Act American citizens may be indefinitely detained, incarcerated, not presented with charges and denied counsel based on an accusation by federal agents of collaboration with or support of terrorists.

While Virginia cannot directly undo this purported law which undermines the Sixth Amendment, I introduced HB 1160 which will prevent the use of any Virginia agency or member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force to assist in any way to unlawfully detain a citizen of Virginia on behalf of the United States Government in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.

Because of this act of moral and constitutional violence masquerading as a law, agencies of the Federal government can detain citizens without a warrant and without a trial who are just accused of being terrorists.

This evil has come to America and Virginia must not participate in it. My HB 1160 would keep Virginia from adulterating the rights of our citizens. If Congress wishes to play the prostitute with the US Constitution, Virginia must remain faithful to our moral roots by passing my HB 1160.

That is why you must contact members of the Courts of Justice Civil Law Subcommittee Wednesday morning and afternoon. The contact information for the members of the subcommittee and the members of the full committee are below. Please contact all of them in support of this legislation.

Thanks for your support!

Delegate Bob Marshall

Courts of Justice Civil Law Subcommittee

Chairman Sal Iaquinto delsiaquinto@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1084
Delegate Terry Kilgore deltkilgore@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1001
Delegate Manoli Loupassi delmloupassi@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1068
Delegate Gregory Habeeb delghabeeb@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1008
Delegate Peter Farrell delpfarrell@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1056
Delegate Randy Minchew delrminchew@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1010
Delegate Joe Johnson deljjohnson@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1004
Delegate David Toscano deldtoscano@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1057
Delegate Jennifer McClellan deljmcclellan@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1071

Remaining Courts of Justice Committee Members

Chairman Dave Albo deldalbo@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1042
Delegate Robert Bell delrbell@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1058
Delegate Ben Cline delbcline@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1024
Delegate Todd Gilbert deltgilbert@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1015
Delegate Jackson Miller deljmiller@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1050
Delegate Ronald Villanueva delrvillanueva@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1021
Delegate Richard Morris delrmorris@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1064
Delegate Vivian Watts delvwatts@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1039
Delegate Charniele Herring delcherring@house.virginia.gov 804-698-1046

Posted in Delegate Bob Marshall | Leave a comment

BECAUSE OF YOUR HARDNESS OF HEART

In this post, WHO DO YOU WANT APPOINTING FEDERAL JUDGES?, we got some interesting comments from Heather, here and here. In her first comment, Heather begins thus: “I never understand how humans feel it their right to over-ride God’s law on this one. There are certain laws that are impossible to enforce — such as abortion.” Then when I quoted the Bible, which I consider God’s Word, Heather found that it made no sense. Heather‘s view of the matter is quite reasonable and understandable, but something is missing. What is missing an appropriate perspective.

Ironically, Heather uses Christian values to reject the Bible. This is all too common. Modern Americans often believe in Christian values, but they do not know enough to attribute those values to Christianity. How did this happen?

At the time of our nation’s founding, about two million Americans, almost all Christians, lived on the Atlantic seaboard. Prosperous and freedom loving, they chose what seemed  to them an obvious course of action. They sought their fortunes by heading west. Now centuries latter, we are over 300 million strong. Unfortunately, somewhere along this journey our Christian roots, our connection with the Bible, withered. We still see God as the giver of rights; we still believe in brotherly love, but we have allowed our secular education system to undermine proper Bible scholarship. So we have forgotten from whence our beliefs came.

So now some just study the Bible enough to sound knowledgeable when they denigrate it. What Heather complains of is an example, the seeming harsh God of the Old Testament, that progenitor of that strange and arbitrary Mosaic Code.  Why would a loving God ever contrive such a thing? It seems He did so to make a bad situation less awful. Consider, for example, what Jesus had to say about divorce.

Mark 10:2-9 Amplified Bible (AMP)

2 And some Pharisees came up, and, in order to test Him and try to find a weakness in Him, asked, Is it lawful for a man to dismiss and repudiate and divorce his wife?

3 He answered them, What did Moses command you?

4 They replied, Moses allowed a man to write a bill of divorce and to put her away.

5 But Jesus said to them, Because of your hardness of heart [your condition of insensibility to the call of God] he wrote you this precept in your Law.

6 But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.

7 For this reason a man shall leave [behind] his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and cleave closely to her permanently,

8 And the two shall become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God has united (joined together), let not man separate or divide.

How would a “good,” religious Jew divorce his wife. The process is described at the beginning of Deuteronomy 24. He writes a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and then he sends her out of the house.  And why? He just felt like doing it. That woman no longer served his purpose. If God thought this better, can you imagine what the alternative must have been?

At the time the Old Testament came to be, it was a man’s world, and it was a world where might made right. Gods were idols, nothings that men worshiped in a vain effort to dominate creation. Yet an idol can serve one purpose. When a man does something he knows in his heart is wrong, with an excuse provided by an idol, he can do as he wishes.

The Old Testament provided no such ready excuses for evil. The Creator God could not bought with sacrifices. He wanted something quite different.

Psalm 51:14-17 Amplified Bible (AMP)

14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness and death, O God, the God of my salvation, and my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness (Your rightness and Your justice).

15 O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Your praise.

16 For You delight not in sacrifice, or else would I give it; You find no pleasure in burnt offering.

17 My sacrifice [the sacrifice acceptable] to God is a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart [broken down with sorrow for sin and humbly and thoroughly penitent], such, O God, You will not despise.

Yet even knowing what God wanted, believing that their salvation depended upon absolute obedience, the Jews could not obey the Mosaic Code. Instead of obeying God, time and time again the Jews demonstrated that men cannot on their own perfect themselves. Even when the rules are adamantly clear and God Himself enforces them, we cannot of our own volition live without sinning.

So God had mercy, and He offered up His own son on our behalf. Jesus became one of us, and He sacrificed Himself. He even set an example we can try to follow.

Therefore, because of Jesus Christians see the world differently. Instead of arbitrary rules, Christians measure their choice of actions based upon two goals: love of God and love of neighbor. We understand that instead of trying to lord over others the best of men strive to serve God, and those who best serve God serve their fellow human beings.

Posted in Culture War, religion | 4 Comments

WHEN IS OBAMA GOING TO NOTICE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE THREE YEARS?

This evening I had the displeasure of listening to President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union speech. Once again I learned that man misleads and lies faster than I can jot notes. His audacity is unbelievable. What is the true measure of his arrogance? He thinks we are stupid enough to believe this line.

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. (from here)

And no more? This is the man who thinks government has the right to tell Americans they must buy health insurance, and he fed the entire country that quote in a State of the Union speech?

What Obama did is give an election year speech, one full of platitudes and promises for all his constituents. He provided them delightful visions of hope and change, and spend, spend, and spend — other people’s money.

Obama also found nice things to say about our military. They captured Osama. So of course Obama will spend more on the VA.

Following his accolades for our military, Obama provided us a militaristic vision of harmony, one designed to appeal to the sons and daughters of the WWII generation. Obama told us we need to follow the example of the citizens of the WWII generation and work together. Why would Obama like that example? Even after all these years, WWII remains just about the biggest government project ever, and no period – except Obama’s presidency — rivals WWII for the control our government exercised over the economy.

Then there was this.

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them. (from here)

American values? From that redistribute the wealth Marxist? Do we really want our government to get in the business of guaranteeing a “fair” outcome? What would that be? When life is not fair, what exactly is “fair”? Who decides? How much power do we want to give our government to decide?

Anyway, I have to go to work tomorrow, I need my beauty rest, and I am sick and tired of pointing out that man’s lies.

Here is the transcript: Obama’s 2012 State of the Union. It should not take a genius to figure out:

  • Obama is still blaming George W. Bush.
  • The economy is not in as good a shape as Obama wants us to believe, and we still have not fixed the problems that led to the housing bubble.
  • That if we just gave him more power Obama still would not fix everything. Would it really be a good idea if Congress let Obama reorganize the entire government just the way he wants?
  • That if we just gave him more money to spend Obama still would not fix everything. Yep! Obama could spend lots of money. He could make all kinds of crony capitalists, labor interests, education lobbies, and environment activists sooooo happy with other people’s money, but how would that help the rest of us?
  • That the whole world is not enraptured with either Obama or the United States.

In addition, if you read between the lines you will see Obama borrowing some of the more popular (with Democrats) planks in the platforms of the Republican presidential candidates. Two were quite obvious.

  • Obama spoke of providing tax incentives for American manufacturers. That’s something Rick Santorum advocates (see the tenth bullet here).
  • Obama borrowed on Romney’s Human Capital plan to create his own program for worker retraining.

What Obama’s speech points out is the fundamental failure of his administration. Instead of getting out of the way and letting private enterprise work, Obama has been too busy transforming our country. If Obama had given this kind of speech three years ago, it might have been believable. Now its just a miserable joke.

Posted in 2012 Election, President Barack Obama | 2 Comments

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

I sat and listened to the Republican candidates for president debate tonight. As I listened, I thought about something Rush Limbaugh mentioned on his show today. He spoke of Newt Gingrich as an advocate Conservatism — of Gingrich’s role in defending Conservative values. Gingrich is a less than perfect Conservative, but he has eloquently confronted the media elites.

I also thought of an editorial the Washington Times published last Friday, WOLF: Mitt defends Mitt while Newt upholds conservatism. While reflecting upon the debate performances of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Dr. Milton R. Wolf made an interesting observation. Whereas Romney defended himself, Gingrich defended Conservatism. Instead of tacitly accepting the validity of the Liberal narrative and Liberal beliefs, Gingrich advocated Conservative beliefs. As Limbaugh observed in today’s show, when he does this, Gingrich serves as a vessel for the Conservative cause.

RUSH:  Newt is a vessel.  The heads of your party, you want the people that run the party that you’re a member of to get the message, stop making fun of you, stop impugning you, stop thinking you’re a bunch of hayseed hicks.  You just to want save the country. You want somebody that’s gonna have fire and brimstone to go out and beat Obama.  You don’t want people that are afraid to campaign.  I know exactly what this victory in South Carolina was all about.  The Republican primary voters are this audience.  I know exactly what’s going on here. I’ve known probably longer than 25 years.  But the people who make this country work are sick and tired of being blamed, falsely accused, attacked, called bigots and racists and sexists and homophobes and all these other horrible, rotten things, selfish, greedy.

They’re seeing their futures robbed. Their party doesn’t seem to have the guts to do anything to stop it.  They see their party leaders wanting to get themselves in charge of it all.  This guy (a caller), if I’d-a let him go on, he’d say, “We don’t care if Newt were married ten times right now. We don’t care if Newt had married a horse right now.  The message is what we want sent.”  We want this party to figure out how to represent us.  We think we know how to beat Obama, and it’s not with McCain.  It’s not by going after the independents.  It’s not by saying we want to compromise and cross the aisle and work with those people who are destroying this country as it was founded.

We don’t want to work with those people.  Those people have been laughing at us and making fun of us and impugning us, and we don’t want you being friends with them.  They are taxing us.  They are preventing our attempt to acquire wealth. They are spending our children’s future away.  Why do you want to make nice with them?  Why do you want to work with them?  Why do you want to compromise with them?  Why don’t you want to beat them?  That’s what we want.  Ergo, somebody comes along and shows how it could be done, and they go, “Yeah, right on, mama, keep it coming.”  That’s all Saturday was.  And it was a result of a couple big days prior to Saturday in the wake of South Carolina. (from here)

We want Conservative politicians to beat the Liberals. Nonetheless, for decades Conservative politicians have not stood up and defended Conservative beliefs. Why not? Well, consider how Wolf ended his column.

If the conservative values of limited government, individual liberty and constitutional fidelity are to prevail, they must be defended unceasingly, passionately and unapologetically. We must demand this of our candidates and our leaders.

I don’t suffer from the delusion that any political candidate is perfect. History has yet to produce such a mythical species, so we’d be fools to hold out for one now. Instead, I subscribe to the Milton Friedman idea that electing the “right” people is nice but a far more effective strategy is to make it politically profitable for even the wrong people to do the right things. Let’s make it politically profitable for our candidates to vigorously defend conservatism by rewarding with our votes those who do. (from here)

We have not made it politically profitable for our candidates to vigorously defend Conservatism? Sounds stupid, does it not? Yet that is the simple truth. Instead of trusting Conservative politicians, we have let the political establishment and the mainstream news media define these people. Instead of doing a little homework, we have believed their lies. That’s how the Liberal establishment removed Gingrich as the Speaker. That’s how the Liberal establishment macacaed Senator George Allen. That’s what the Liberal establishment has done to a whole host of Conservatives and the Republican establishment has quaked in terror — hiding in “moderation”, and We the People have stood silently, acquiesced, and let it happen.

Fortunately, times have changed. We the People finally want to resist the Liberal establishment. So now at last we have a choice of Conservatives. In the presidential race, we can choose between Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator Rick Santorum. In Virginia’s U.S. Senate race we can choose between Senator George Allen and Delegate Bob Marshall. And we can ask which has been the more steadfast Conservative.

I recommend you research all candidates, particularly the ones the establishment would have you ignore. Do a little homework. Check out Senator Rick Santorum and Delegate Bob Marshall for they too have fought the good fight, and they have fought well.

Posted in 2012 Election, Delegate Bob Marshall, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Republican Party, Rick Santorum, Senator George Allen | 5 Comments

2012 PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON NEWT GINGRICH

elephantgop.pngWould Newt Gingrich be a good president? Until someone has actually served, we can only guess. So we usually look at a candidate’s track record and political positions. Then we go to the polls, vote, and hope for the best.

Going to vote Gingrich? Then I suspect a considerable amount of hope is involved. Unfortunately, we never get great choices, and this year is little different. Mitt Romney has considerable executive experience, but he is renowned for his flip-flops. Rick Santorum has a good political platform, but he has little executive experience.  Ron Paul is unqualified on both counts; he has little executive experience, and he proposes to implement an isolationist foreign policy.  So we must give Newt Gingrich careful consideration.

General Observations On Newt Gingrich

In 2007, as we approached the 2008 election, I reviewed a book by Gingrich (see WINNING THE FUTURE BY NEWT GINGRICH).

Published in 2005, Winning the Future is essentially the campaign platform of either a presidential candidate or a national political party. This is a platform well worth reading. Consider the table of contents (see here). In 191 pages, Gingrich provides a detailed explanation of how he feels about each these subjects. (from here)

In WINNING THE FUTURE BY NEWT GINGRICH, I also considered the viability Gingrich’s candidacy. So I will not repeat what I wrote then here.

In addition, I have written one other post that considered Gingrich’s record, An Election Campaign as Information Warfare. Here is the relevant part.

The art of warfare involves leveraging strength against weakness, and we have a good example of how that applies to political campaigns. When Newt Gingrich and Richard Armey led Republicans to victory in 1994, they focused the efforts of all Republicans on particular issues, issues where the Republican stance was clearly more popular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America). (from here)

What Gingrich accomplished in 1994 was an already rare event and has yet to be repeated. The GOP tried to repeat that performance in 2010. They wrote A Pledge To America (from here), but they failed to deliver (See WHY DON’T REPUBLICANS ACT LIKE WE GAVE THEM A MANDATE?). It seems what Gingrich accomplished is far more difficult than it appears. Unlike they did with Gingrich’s Contract with America, Republicans have been unwilling to hold themselves accountable to their promises.

So what would a Gingrich presidency be like? The Club for Growth ends its assessment with this paragraph.

The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be.  Past is often prologue, and in Gingrich’s case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment.  One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness. (from here)

Given that The Club For Growth provides about the same “support” for all the candidates, that is hardly is condemnation. What it points out is that Gingrich is a complicated fellow. If you are willing to risk some serious disappointments and unevenness for flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, Gingrich is clearly your man.

If we want a Conservative, we are stuck choosing between Santorum and Gingrich. Gingrich has executive experience (both as Speaker of the House and as a business executive), and he has a Conservative platform. Nonetheless, Santorum has been steady on social issues and opposed TARP, the stimulus, the auto bailout, and the Fannie-Freddie bailout. So I favor Santorum.

Posted in 2012 Election, Newt Gingrich | 4 Comments