In my last post, 2016 POST ELECTION STRATEGY AND TACTICS – PART 2, we considered the problem of controlling government from a religious perspective. Here we will look at the problem of government from a technical perceptive. That is, what are the basic things that government does that can get out of control? Since this subject has already been addressed numerous times by better authors, I will just refer you to one of them. Here is an excellent summation from Ken Cuccinelli.
We are all familiar with the law of gravity. It is a law of nature, and thankfully, the law of gravity is not considered to be open to debate.
There are other laws of nature — immutable truths that cannot be avoided but that are not as well known.
Among these is the principle that when a government derives its power from the people, such as in a constitutional republic like the United States, every expansion in the role and power of the government automatically results in a reduction in the power and freedom of the people. This law of liberty is as unavoidable as the law of gravity.
There are three ways that government increases its power: raising taxes, increasing spending, and creating more regulation.
It’s easy to see how taxes increase government power and reduce our freedom. The more of our earnings the government takes from us for its own purposes, the less we have left to spend on ourselves and our families, and the fewer choices we have in our lives. Fewer choices means less liberty.
Because the federal government’s spending is not tied to its taxing power (it historically spends more than it collects), spending is not directly related to taxes.
Therefore, the more things our government attempts to do — i.e., the more money it spends — the less there is for us to do. This crowding out of citizens means less freedom for them.
The third part in the law of liberty is perhaps even more nefarious, because it tends to be subtler. More regulations means the government is ordering us to do something or restricting us from what we are otherwise allowed to do. (continued here)
Why the picture of the motorcycle? Whenever we do anything, we have to make trade-offs. When a motorcyclist takes a turn, he must anticipate the trade-offs. He can lean into the turn to compensate for the fact that turning increases the forces throwing him outward, but how much he can lean into the turn depends upon the his tires and the friction provided by the road surface. That means the faster he goes the greater the risk of slipping and sliding. Therefore, the motorcyclist seeks an optimum speed, one that allows him to win without sliding out of control.
As Cuccinelli observed, increased taxes, increased spending, and increased regulation forces us to make trade-offs. Where is the optimum? How much should our government tax us? How much should our government spend? Where should we draw the line and say we have enough regulations? Since government uses force or the threat of force to collect taxes, spend our money, and regulate us, I think the answer is a moral one, not just a technical one.
When we call government taxation, spending, and regulation moral issues, what does that mean in practice? It means we must make certain we know exactly what it is that we need our government to do and why government must do it instead of public-spirited, charitable private entities. Is what we want the government to do actually worth throwing some of our neighbors in jail?
Note that President Obama starts his speech about 22 minutes into this video.
Do you still believe this guy? According to him, Obamacare is a great success and affordable. He doesn’t have a good record of telling the truth, unfortunately. Yet one of the candidates supports what Obama has done (She belongs in jail for lying, among other things.) and the other candidate doesn’t.
According to Hillary Clinton, health care is a basic human right (from here).
That sounds great. Hence, we have a weeping, but gullible lady. What she does not see is a devil in the details. Someone has to pay for this right. When we force other people to pay for our “rights”, we have to enslave those people. That’s why there is nothing in the Constitution that says we have a basic human right to exploit other people to satisfy our own ends.
Think about it. Where do basic human rights stop? Food? Clothing? Shelter? Education? Job? A car? An Obamaphone? A fabulous vacation? Nevertheless, H. Clinton wants to build upon Obamacare.
As your president, I want to build on the progress we’ve made. I’ll do more to bring down health care costs for families, ease burdens on small businesses, and make sure consumers have the choices they deserve. And frankly, it is finally time for us to deal with the skyrocketing out-of-pocket health costs, and particularly runaway prescription drug prices. (continued here)
With respect to the notion that health care is a basic human right, Donald Trump is not a Conservative. Nevertheless, he recognizes that Obamacare is a disaster.
So what does H. Clinton propose? It is the usual Liberal Democrat solution. So that they can fix the mess they made, she wants us to give incompetent and power mad leaders more power (see her factsheet).
Yesterday I got an email from Ken Cuccinelli. He has endorsed Senator Ted Cruz for President. I have been considering the Republican field, and I had decided to support either Cruz or Ben Carson. I have been surprised by Donald Trump‘s performance. He has turned out to be a far stronger candidate than anyone expected. However, of the three, only Cruz is a life-long committed Conservative. Only Cruz has record that says he will fight and knows how to fight for Conservative political values. So I had planned to write a post extolling Cruz’s virtues. However, since Cuccinelli writes better than I do……
My Fellow Virginians,
I am one of countless Republicans exasperated with how the Washington Republican “leadership” has failed to even try to advance our basic principles, to say nothing how they continue to violate their own campaign promises. Like many others, I believe Washington is a politically incestuous den of crony government – and that’s bi-partisan. We have many challenges as a country, but we will never confront most of those challenges unless we elect a President who is willing to swim against the current of corruption of Washington.
While many Presidential candidates are trying to make the case that they won’t be captured by Washington, only Senator Ted Cruz has the consistent track record to prove it. Does that make him appear to not get along with the Washington leadership? Yes. Does the leadership dislike him? Yes. In the mainstream media, this conflict is portrayed as a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. The folks that don’t like Senator Cruz in Washington don’t like him because he’s an unapologetic Constitutional Conservative that doesn’t back down. I can live with that… in fact, I can get pretty excited about that!
The intensity of the Republican grassroots’ anger at the GOP leadership is THE major reason that Donald Trump continues to perform well in polling. It was also part of the successful launch of Dr. Ben Carson. That anger isn’t just a reaction to President Obama’s destructive policies; it is a reaction to the Republican leadership’s unwillingness to lead like Republicans. While I respect Donald Trump and Ben Carson, only Ted Cruz has had a consistent record (after getting elected) of challenging the Republican leadership and President Obama’s disastrous policies. Lots of people talk about fighting Washington, Senator Cruz has done it.
On foreign policy, the GOP seems to have three groups: the “neocons” on one end, the “Paulites” on the other end, and then a group in the middle. Most of the GOP candidates are neocons. I used to be a neocon too… until I figured out that neocon polices don’t work and cost far too much in lives and treasure. I would also note that the neocons are the most willing to “conveniently” read the constitution in ways that dramatically tip the balance between liberty and security…away from liberty. This tendency is particularly true with regard to their willingness to trample the Fourth Amendment (requiring government to get a warrant based on probable cause to search or seize your property).
I have come to believe that we cannot have a knee-jerk reaction to enter every armed conflict, but should preserve our strength and political capital to be aggressive where it matters most to American interests. Examples poor foreign policy actions include working to remove Muammar Gaddafi in Libya (in 2011) and Bashar Assad in Syria (which has not yet occurred). Although they may be loathsome human beings, our efforts to remove national leaders we don’t like in the Middle East often brings much more catastrophic circumstances with regard to America’s security, as we have seen in Libya where ISIS and Al Qaeda have greatly grown in strength since 2011.
Over the last 15 years, America has spent trillions of dollars that we don’t have on foreign policy ventures, most of which have proven bad investments. We need a President frugal enough to actually count the monetary cost our foreign policy. Ted Cruz is in the middle group of Republicans on foreign policy issues. While it may be rousing to hear emotional, warlike rhetoric from some candidates, I believe such strategies are proven failures and I want my next President to break the cycle of foreign policy failures of the current and past Presidents.
One of the reasons the GOP establishment and big corporate interests dislike Ted Cruz is because he has fought amnesty in immigration. The threat of terrorism and the debilitating drain on our resources from unfettered immigration show clearly that we must have a President who will stand strong for American sovereignty on immigration and against the big corporate interests that control the congressional leadership of both parties.
Ted Cruz’s consistent resistance to the growth of Washington power has also extended to the budget. The Fed just raised interest rates ¼ of 1%. That equates to almost $50 billion more dollars of interest payments on our national debt every year. And the Fed has signaled that it expects a full 1% increase through 2016. That means that our nearly $20 trillion national debt will squeeze out almost $200 billion of money from our national budget in 2017 just to pay interest on the debt! Wow, that’s a big number!
Obama has already eviscerated our military. The increased debt payments will make it much, much harder to find the money we need to repair Obama’s damage to our military. Among the top Presidential candidates, only Ted Cruz has shown the commitment to cutting the federal budget in the aggressive way necessary to attack our federal debt. That debt is one of the greatest threats to our children’s future that the next President will face.
One way Ted Cruz has demonstrated his commitment to conservative principles is by the type of people he has hired in his Senate office. He believes ‘personnel is policy.’ Many of the people Senator Cruz hired for his Senate office came out of former Senator Jim DeMint’s staff. Compare his hiring history to others in the top tier of the nomination contest and it’s no contest. This is part of Cruz’s consistent, conservative track record. He will bring in to his administration dedicated, patriotic conservatives to help shrink the power of government in our lives and in our economy.
And while I could go on to other reasons why Ted Cruz should be our next President, I will end with this: Ted Cruz has shown – starting long before he ever ran for the U.S. Senate – that he is committed to the first principles of this country. He is a full spectrum conservative who knows and has fought to protect our Constitution. He doesn’t protect the parts of the Constitution he likes, and he doesn’t protect the Constitution only when it’s convenient. Ted Cruz fights for our whole Constitution – all the time. This commitment to our Constitution will be reflected in how he uses the executive power of the President and the judges he nominates.
Ted Cruz has been a consistent, full-spectrum conservative who has a strong track record of fighting for -and bleeding for – our first principles. Many candidates “talk conservative” during campaigns, but their actions don’t match their campaign rhetoric. No other candidate can match Senator Ted Cruz’s strong conservative track record.
America is at a tipping point. It is not enough for us to get a Republican President in 2016 – someone who will simply preside over the decline of America. We need a Republican President who will undo the damage done by President Obama and who will take on his own party leadership to finally reign in the power and reckless spending of Washington.
Note: If we Conservatives want a Conservative in the White House, we have to get out and support our guy. Cruz is that guy.
Note: If we Conservatives want an effective Conservative in the White, we have to do something about the Liberal Democrats and the Big Spending RINOs in Congress. We must run candidates against them, and we must relentlessly replace any of our candidates who fail to deliver on their promises. In particular, we must insist that they cut Federal spending.
Note: If we Conservatives want to save our republic — to save our country for the sake of our children and grandchildren — we cannot give up. Failure is not an acceptable option.
We must constantly keep in our minds what Ronald Reagan once said.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. — Ronald Reagan (from here)
Too few of us have fought for our freedom. With no effort on our part, we gained our freedom from our parents just as they gained it from their parents. Too few of us have protected our freedom. Instead, we have protected our “rights,” and too few of us have yet to discern the difference between our rights and our privileges.
What is the difference between a right and a privilege? Too few of us care. Perhaps that is why too few of us have handed onto our children the true meaning of freedom. Perhaps that is why we now risk spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.