Elect the Right Person
The Presidential Primary for South Carolina will be settled this coming Saturday. You and I likely share the view that the election and the accompanying onslaught of phone calls, TV ads, mailers and newspaper articles cannot end soon enough. With that said, I do not want to understate the importance of this historic event. As God fearing, liberty loving people we know how important electing the right leadership is to the continuation of our way of life and freedoms that are the envy of most of the rest of the world.
There are many platform positions we must evaluate the candidates on and all are important. The freedom to practice our religion in the way we choose, our right to own guns, maintaining a strong military, sanctity of life, protection of our property rights and other rights and protections granted by our Constitution are near and dear to all. None of these should be minimized in any way. However, you really have to split hairs to truly distinguish between the top tier candidates on most of the social issues. However, when you narrow the issues down it becomes clear that if we do not elect someone that is capable of addressing the looming economic calamity confronting our nation we will not likely be in a position to control the infringements on our social rights.
Our nation has accumulated a national debt of $15 trillion dollars and it is projected to grow in the coming decades. When you factor in the unfunded liabilities for promises we have made for programs such as Medicare and Social Security which are estimated to be around $34 trillion, the magnitude of the financial burden we face comes more clearly into view. According to the editorial in the January 17th Post and Courier there is little hope that we can tax our way out of the problems. Bryan Lawrence from Oakcliff Capital had this to say: “the total value of companies traded on U. S. stock markets is $13.6 trillion”. The editorial also stated: ”U.S. taxpayers homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion”. If we were to confiscate all the wealth in America we could not cover the huge deficits we are faced with.
The only logical way out of our dire financial situation is to turn on the power of the most dynamic capitalistic growth engine known to mankind. We cannot tax our way out so we must grow our way out of these problems. It is abundantly clear that we must elect a new President that has the economic background, understands capitalism and has the proven ability to lead. The job is far too important to turn over to Washington insiders that have contributed greatly to the existing dilemma we are facing.. There is only one candidate I trust to take on the challenges and lead our great nation back to financial solvency. There is only one candidate that possesses the unique skill set to tackle the financial mess we find ourselves in. My vote on Saturday will be for Mitt Romney and I hope I can count on you to join with me to elect the candidate that is the best suited for the job and has the best chance to defeat Obama next November.
Did you know that in Mass., Romney had his folks pay 100 dollars per year per gun for a tax? My husband under those rules would have to pay over 1,000 dollars for our American right! No thanks. Mitt Romney is Obama light. His tax plans for businesses and families are weak and simply not aggressive enough considering the mess we are in.
Please don’t tell me we’re settling for this!
http://youtu.be/UNL6-1_fHFo
This is a reply to an opinion piece in the WSJ written by Kimberly Strassel. The title of the piece is What Ron Paul Wants: He knows he can’t win, but he wants to use his delegates to hold the Republican Party hostage to his views on national security and presidential power.
Here is a reply from Michael Falls:
“Full disclosure: As and airborne ranger infantry officer i have spent the better part of the last decade fighting in two theaters of war. I know full well the hardships of the military. I have served as rifle platoon leader, mortar platoon leader, commander, and division headquarters battle major which as afforded me a perspective that the everyday citizen can not claim to know or even begin to understand. What most Americans and even our senior military leaders have failed to grasp is that the nature of the combat in Afghanistan and Iraq-which throws our servicemen and women into situations of extreme complexity, low intensity (relatively speaking), and poorly articulated strategic goals (and, therefore, tactical goals). Those in my generation who have served have come to know war well, and what we engage in is not “defense.”
In any event here are a few points that you may have misunderstood regarding Ron Paul’s platform. Do me a favor, after each one ask yourself, is this traditional conservatism?
Ron Paul said “when America seeks war, it must be sought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as previously planned, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory;” he added, “The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy.”
Ron Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations”. He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating; “free-trade agreements are really managed trade” and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.
Ron Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its constitutionally authorized functions.
Ron Paul believes that the Federal Reserve causes inflation thereby eroding the value of individual savings. This creation of inflation leads to booms and busts in the economy. Paul argues that government, via a central bank (the Federal Reserve), is the primary cause of economic recessions and depressions. He believes that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.
Ron Paul adheres deeply to Austrian School economics (you know the same philosopy that enjoys the company of nobel laureates Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and F.A. Hayek) and libertarian criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposing fiat currency and the inflation thereof. Paul opposes inflation as an underhanded form of taxation, because it takes value away from the money that individuals hold without having to directly tax them. He sees the creation of the Federal Reserve, and its ability to “print money out of thin air” without commodity backing, as responsible for eroding the value of money.
Ron Paul argues that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense.
I suggest that if you believe in the American Constitution as designed by the Founding Fathers of our country, you would have a hard time disagreeing with Ron Paul’s ideas, and maybe next time you’ll provide a more objective opinion piece rather than regurgitating the same misinformation as the other major media outlets.”
Romney’s record on gun control is solid: Read this and then provide “facts” if you wish to sway me:
Governor Romney worked to prevent and remove anti-gun legislation from being passed by the legislature. His and others efforts, along with his promise of a veto, prevented any anti-gun legislation from being passed by the state legislature during his term in office.
“Legislation: During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk…
“His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows…
“Chapter 48 of the Acts of 2006: An Act Reducing Gang Violence (Section 6 – committing or concealing a crime) … there were several anti-second amendment sections in the original draft. The legislative sponsors of the bill, GOAL, and the Romney administration all worked together to remove any bad sections. We were successful in doing so and actually came up with some new language that more affectively went after the criminal element.”
Gun Owners’ Action League news – The Romney Record – Feb 2007
“We had an effort in Massachusetts on the part of some to ban 50 caliber rifles. I opposed that, indicated I would oppose that ban. You know, I think we have to be very careful in any way restricting Second Amendment rights.” (Mitt Romney)
The American Spectator – Romney on Guns – Mar 7, 2007
GROVER NORQUIST from the board of directors of the NRA:
“Guns and Romney. Romney’s position on guns is flawless … I went and worked with the governor back when the D’s were planning on passing a restriction on 50 caliber rifles in Massachusetts. And he committed to me that he would oppose any restrictions… his position is fine.”
Maria Leavey Memorial Breakfast Series – Grover Norquist – Jun 14, 2007 (transcript
Do not believe everything Newt tells you. He often takes things out of context and slants the news his way to make a point. The charge could create a false impression.
The “tax” Gingrich refers to was in fact a fee on gun licenses that Romney raised in 2003 as part of his administration’s effort that year to scour the tax code for loopholes it could close and fees it could hike to close a budget deficit.
Romney initially proposed raising the fee for a gun license from $25 to $75, but the Legislature bumped it to $100, and Romney signed that increase into law, according to James Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, a Massachusetts gun rights group.
The following year, Romney worked with the Legislature to increase the duration of a gun license from four to six years, which had the effect of mitigating the higher gun license fee. So a gun license that used to cost $25 for 4 years ($6.25 per year) became $100 for 6 years ($16.66 per year).
Now you know the true story.
MacMan: I appreciate your conservative values and all you have done for the Republican Party.
However, I really think that the Republican Party needs to be the party of the Constitution. Romney’s record of using gun control to balance the budget doesn’t impress me. Sorry. The Republican Party needs to get back to the Constitution. They have left it. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum are not standing up for the Constitution. That fact is a huge disappointment for me, a tea partier. The Republican Party has to have a candidate who will make the Contrast against the Progressive Liberals.