Rome is Burning

Edmund Burke once said, “Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” We find ourselves at a crossroads in America. Is this the beginning of the end of the government set up by our Founders?

I've been reading a book called Preserving Democracy by Elgin L. Hushbeck, Jr., and it's been quite educational.  The chapter about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic describes events that are alarmingly similar to those we see in our country today.

The Romans were pretty wise people. They set up a form of representative government with similarities to our own American republic. In the Roman Republic, citizens were governed by two consuls (which were elected annually by the people) and a senate. They developed a complex constitution that focused on separation of powers and checks and balances.  Theoretically, since each elected consul could only hold office for one year, this would preclude any one individual from having too much power over their fellow citizens.  There were ongoing struggles inside the Roman Republic between the patricians (aristocracy) and plebs (ordinary citizens) that resulted in an erosion of the power held by the aristocracy and an erosion of the checks and balances within the government that held the Roman Republic intact.  Over time, the system could not be maintained as the rule of law was replaced by the rule of man, and the Republic crumbled as Julius Caesar assumed power. The intricacies of the government of the Roman Republic are too complex to fully describe here, so I would recommend doing some research online or reading Hushbeck's book to learn more.

So what happened in the Roman Republic that caused its collapse?  What can we learn from their mistakes? Here are a few of the key factors that led to the demise of their form of representative government. We would be wise to learn the lessons of Roman Republic and return to the government laid out by our Founders in our Constitution.

The Ruling Elite and Birth of Populism

The aristocracy in Rome held most of the highest offices in the land. The senate was comprised of elites exclusively, and although the plebs had a voice in government, their power had been quite limited in reality. For the most part, order and peace were maintained for a long while in Rome, but slave labor used by the elites was driving plebs off the land and into the cities because they could not compete with the wealthy land owners for jobs. Unfortunately, even in the cities much of the work was being done by slaves leaving plebs with few jobs. In order to deal with the lack of jobs held by the plebs the rulers in the Roman Republic set about attempting to solve the problem by making numerous promises to them. The focus on the law was replaced by a focus on individual politicians. Populism was born as those voting began choosing leaders who would promise solutions to problems, even if those promises were not in accordance with tradition or law, and even if those promises would never be realized.

Moral Decline

As the politicians worked to curry favor with those voting, the immorality among the citizens and government was on the rise. The sexual immorality that existed inside the Roman Empire is legendary, but it got its start during the Roman Republic. The slaughter of slaves for entertainment was common as the leaders entertained the masses to appease a growing number of citizens who were out of work and out of hope. Children were not valued in the culture of Rome and reports of abuse were common. Some Romans believed themselves divine while others worshiped Greek gods, but their forms of religion did not translate into personal morality or responsibility. Marriage was on the decline and cruel treatment of slaves was pervasive in Rome.

Rapid Expansion and Mob Rule

Military conquest was a hallmark of Roman society. As wars were waged, the Republic expanded in size and the defeated enemies were turned into slaves. As the Republic grew in size and population... the infighting within the government grew. Senators used partisan politics to keep power within the elite class, while the populists looked to the lower classes for support. This divided the people and classes into warring factions. For nearly 100 years, the climate was anything but civil. As time went on, the Roman citizens began to elect leaders who would put an end to many laws and traditions, in spite of the fact that this erosion would inevitably lead to the loss of their voice in government entirely in the Roman Empire. The politicians would not be truthful with the people because doing so would lead to certain defeat (sometimes death!). The mob was in control, if you could call it that.

What are the parallels?

The elite run this country. The number of people in power that are wealthy and very well educated far out-number ordinary citizens.

Immorality is on the rise. Over 54 million babies have been aborted in America since 1973.  Marriage is on the decline as couples choose to cohabitate or post-pone marriage.  Homosexuality is becoming more accepted and Biblical principles are rarely a guiding force in crafting public policy or in the personal behaviors of our citizens today.

Mob rule is showing up at Occupy Wall Street events as police are faced with an ever increasing number of violent protesters who destroy public and private property. Politicians promise voters the moon to get elected and then fail to deliver on those promises. Those casting the votes are kept in the dark about how the government is really operating, and more voters now support policies and programs that rob them of their tax dollars and their liberty.  Additionally, the very programs that are intended to help the poor are creating an ever increasing underclass of people who are dependent on these government programs.

The rule of law is being replaced by rule of man as our president issues executive orders and unilaterally decides which laws will be enforced.  Our Department of Justice is suing a record number of states because they are passing laws that do not conform to the ideology of the ruling party. This usurpation of power conflicts with the sovereignty of the states as laid out in our Constitution.

The Solution

The Tea Party rose up in America in reaction to Obama's Affordable Care Act. The size, scope, and expense of this new government program (dubbed Obamacare) is unprecedented in American history. These grassroots conservatives began to realize the tyranny of the elite was robbing us of our most basic rights. Tea Party conservatives have begun educating themselves and teaching others about the workings within our government; they have begun the work to restore our nation to the principles laid out by our Founders in the Constitution.

The fact that these ordinary citizens are not rising up to request benefits from the government is unprecedented as well. Unlike the mob rule in Rome, these citizens are wanting less government assistance and more personal responsibility. Most of those involved in the Tea Party movement are common citizens without wealth or power.  They realize that if we don't stem the tide of government spending, we may not have an America left for our children. The only solution to our problems in America is for the citizens of this country to turn back to God who gave us life and liberty ... and to do the job entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers. We must assume personal responsibility for our actions and for our nations problems. We must choose leaders and support policies that hold to Constitutional principles. We must insist our leaders value the sovereignty and liberty of the individual, even if that means losing some of the comforts of government assistance that have been put in place over the years.

The solution is not easy. Convincing people to give up benefits they enjoy will be a long struggle, but it is a battle we must win if we want to avoid the same fate as the Roman Republic.

News you can trust?

The last few days I have been analyzing the news coverage of the massacre at a midnight screening of The Dark Knight at a theater in Aurora, Colorado and it has occurred to me, conservatives are under assault by the mainstream media like never before. We have been and will probably continue to be the target of malicious lies and rumors by those who have a liberal ideology. The bias by the mainstream media against conservatives is not a new phenomenon, but I would offer that the wholesale attacks that are now taking place are much more widespread and have risen to a whole new level. Quite frankly, it is frightening.

On Thursday, July 19, 2012, in Aurora, CO James Eagan Holmes walked into a movie theater dressed in protective clothing, set off smoke or gas canisters and shot into the audience with multiple firearms, killing 12 people and injuring 58. Hundreds of reports of this incident are circulating on the internet, so I will not go into more detail here. 

What concerns me about this incident (besides the despicable nature of the crime itself) is the shockingly bad judgement of those in the media reporting on the event, who in their zeal to target conservatives and promote their liberal agendas began putting out the following 'reports'...

Brian Ross of ABC News wins the prize for worst offender.

On the Saturday version of the NBC Today show Michael Isikoff filed a report: "the powerful National Rifle Association has blocked any move for stricter gun laws," and that people will have to settle for "beefed-up security and greater vigilance," as if the NRA were preventing people from being safer.

The Associated Press, once thought of as a bastion for unvarnished truth, puts out this piece filled with language that clearly illuminates a liberal mindset:

Calls for gun control stir little support
By By DAVID ESPO and NANCY BENAC

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gun control advocates sputter at their own impotence. The National Rifle Association is politically ascendant. And Barack Obama's White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver.

Once, every highly publicized outbreak of gun violence produced strong calls from Democrats and a few Republicans for tougher controls on firearms.

Now those pleas are muted, a political paradox that's grown more pronounced in an era scarred by Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wounding of a congresswoman and now the shooting in a suburban movie theater where carnage is expected on-screen only.

"We don't want sympathy. We want action," Dan Gross, president of the Brady campaign said Friday.

CNN's Piers Morgan dedicated a good portion of his Friday program to promoting his gun-control ideology:

And this is what constitutes journalism today? I am not so bothered by the fact that these individuals and organizations have a particular point of view that differs from my own, but it is alarming that they are planting seeds in the mind of the public suggesting this is the only viewpoint that is viable. Most concerning is that these news outlets allow a story that the killer in Aurora was a crazy right-wing tea party member, a story that was put out there to disparage conservatives. How many individuals saw the subsequent retraction and apology by ABC? I doubt most viewers ever saw that .. and the idea remains that conservatives, particularly tea-party conservatives, are deranged killers. We saw a similar rush to judgement in the Gabby Giffords shooting by liberal media outlets.

The lesson from this story is .. you can't trust the mainstream media. We must be on our guard and diligent in sharing the conservative viewpoint to the public, because we now know we can not trust the mainstream media to hold to any reasonable standard of journalistic integrity. As Sean Hannity has been saying for quite some time now: "Journalism, as we once knew it, is dead"

Time to step out of our comfort zone

As I ponder the situation we find ourselves in today, I am amazed just how status-quo-ish the whole world seems to be about looming crises. We go on about our daily business and push down all those nagging worries about deficits, national security, terrorism and the general decline in our cultural values and think that somehow it will all be figured out someday .. some way. But, is that really true? The only problem with that philosophy is that rarely does improvement happen in anything related to human endeavors without at least a few strong-willed individuals stepping out of their comfort zone to take on established practices. Let's take a step back in time to some pivotal points in our history and examine how the behaviors and attitudes of individuals made a positive difference in the course of human events.

Boston Tea Party

The colonists in America had a real distrust of the British government. Colonists felt the Brits were too far removed to fairly govern them, they made no real attempt to seek their consent or opinions, but the final straw was the British Parliament began taxing them excessively for tea. The British wanted to raise additional tax revenues by directly taxing the citizens of the new world, but they weren't interested in giving them any sort of representation in government. The Boston Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement among the colonies in America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament. The colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, but especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in other colonies, but in Boston, Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently didn't expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea. 

The Boston Tea Party was a key event in the growth of the American Revolution.  These brave individuals who destroyed the tea on that fateful day took the first step in the process that would result in the birth of this nation. 

Slavery

Would we have ever seen an end to slavery if there weren't brave individuals willing to take on the political and economic forces of the day? I was born and raised in Mississippi, so it pains me to say that my ancestors did a very bad thing by owning and trading slaves. I am not aware of any specific people in my family line who directly participated in this horrible practice, but most assuredly, slavery touched many of them in some way back in the day. The plantation owners had a pretty sweet deal with very low cost labor to work in their fields.. they lived in luxury as their slaves did the hard work of cultivating and harvesting their crops. The system was maintained for a very long time because it was the backbone of the agricultural and economic structure of the south, and losing slaves would put an end to the lifestyles of those wealthy plantation owners. But very brave people stood up against slavery at great danger to themselves in many instances. Some of those people include: 

• Abigail Adams - Spoke out against the practice of slavery and wrote letters to Congress
• Harriet Tubman - Helped many slaves escape from slavery as a part of the Underground Railroad.  She risked her life to help many slaves escape to freedom in the North and Canada
• John Wesley (Methodist Minister) - in 1774, he wrote a tract called "Thoughts on Slavery" that went into four editions in two years. In it, he attacked the Slave Trade and the slave-trader with considerable passion and proposed a boycott of slave-produced sugar and rum.
• Hannah More - an educator, writer and social reformer. She was also known for her writings on abolition and for encouraging women to join the anti-slavery movement.
• Joseph Sturge - secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society in Birmingham in 1826. He thought the London leadership too cautious and argued for greater public agitation. "The people", he said, "must emancipate the slaves for the Government never will."

This is a very short list of the people who participated in the movement to free the slaves.  You can read about many more of these people at The Abolition Project. 

Civil Rights

Rosa Parks was a black woman on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama where the seats were all taken. When additional white passengers got onto the bus the 'whites only' sign was moved back and Rosa Parks seat was now in the newly assigned 'whites only' section.  It was customary for blacks to give up their seats to white passengers, but Rosa remained in her seat insisting she didn't think she should have to move. She was charged with a crime and her case made its way to the Supreme Court. This simple act by one woman started a bus boycott -- black residents of Montgomery continued the boycott for 381 days, at considerable personal sacrifice. This boycott dealt a major financial blow to the bus companies. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the segregation laws  allowing 'whites only' sections on buses were unconstitutional.  

Here is what Rosa Parks had to say about her decision to remain in her seat:

I did not want to be mistreated, I did not want to be deprived of a seat that I had paid for. It was just time... there was opportunity for me to take a stand to express the way I felt about being treated in that manner. I had not planned to get arrested. I had plenty to do without having to end up in jail. But when I had to face that decision, I didn't hesitate to do so because I felt that we had endured that too long. The more we gave in, the more we complied with that kind of treatment, the more oppressive it became

This act of courage by one woman was the beginning of the end of segregation.

Cold War

When the Soviet Union was at the height of it's power, the world was in a perpetual state of fear wondering when the war to end all wars would begin. Countries were busy building up their nuclear arsenals and a lot of heated talk between those countries behind the iron curtain and the free world was ongoing. Nothing really seemed to halt the escalation of the threats by the Soviet Union against our country, so we built nuclear fall-out shelters and the status-quo of believing there would one day be a nuclear holocaust was fixed in the minds of most Americans. I was a child during most of this, but even I recall thinking that the end of this world would probably come at the hands of the Soviet Union. I wasn't aware of all the details, of course, but it just seemed all the 'grown-ups' had pretty much given up the idea we could or should find a way to stop the Soviet threat.  Then along came Ronald Reagan, and all of that changed. 

Reagan was fearless in the face of the Soviet threat. He began negotiations with Soviet leaders in spite of dire warnings by his advisers. His idea for a nuclear defense shield (and it was only an idea, it never was developed) actually put the Soviets on the defense for the first time. Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Soviet Union, met with Reagan and not only did the two get along, they became friends. The events that transpired as a result of Reagan's negotiations with Gorbachev are too numerous to list here, but essentially, Reagan was the catalyst that caused the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. The vision and courage of one man, brought down one of the world's greatest super-powers.

It is time for us to step out of our comfort zone. We may not have the political savvy of a Ronald Reagan, but every citizen of this country that really values freedom has what it takes to stand up for the principles that built this nation. We don't have to just accept the norms being forced on us by a godless Hollywood or liberal government. We have a right to be heard and represented. It may mean sacrificing a little personal comfort, but is that really so much to give up? It is time to speak loudly and often and fight back against forces that would turn this country into a failed socialist state. Too many people have worked too hard and many have died to give us this great country. It is simply unacceptable for us to lay down and allow it to be taken away from us without a fight. 

Truth-Tellers

Today has been a particularly difficult day in the Twitter-verse for me. After assaults from those on both left and right, I decided it was time to voice my concern about the unwillingness on the part of many individuals to think critically, to question established practice and to venture outside the norms that hold us firmly affixed to the status-quo. I, too, have been guilty of holding onto beliefs that kept me preaching the gospel of conformity to help my party gain or retain power, but, over the past year, I've done a thorough researching of what I believe, what I've been told and how those measure up to reality. What I discovered is that I had not really been doing the hard work of finding out the truth ...I had just been accepting the truth that was presented to me by others. Now, I stand alone in many of my views, which isn't always so pleasant. I cannot complain, however, because the amount of grief I might incur from sounding the alarm is nothing compared to the troubles that may befall us if we continue down our current path. It is my calling and my duty to educate any who are willing to learn. It is for this reason I started this blog. 

There are many truth-tellers who have preceded me, who ventured outside the universe of accepted 'truth.' I do not presume to be in the same league as any of these great patriots, but they are my inspiration, and the reason I am willing to stick out my neck and face ridicule. I thought I would share some of my insights about these brave souls. 

Our Founding Fathers were the first to rebel against accepted truth, by taking on the tyranny of Great Britain. There is little doubt this group of brave men understood that their Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war. Having few resources, they stood against the great British Empire knowing that their fight for liberty may just bring them death; but, in spite of this, they proceeded on their quest for a new, free nation. I am sure that God played a hand in the survival of these men and the establishment of this nation. Their bravery and brilliance is lauded today both here and abroad. 

Abigail Adams was an advocate for women’s rights and abolition of slavery long before either were considered politically popular. She penned letters to Congress and spoke out often. No doubt her words began the process that would eventually lead us to freeing the slaves and women’s participation in the political process.

Abraham Lincoln held together a divided country in the face of political strife and personal tragedy. He freed the slaves, won the civil war and managed to keep this country united. He had critics on both sides of the Civil war, but it did not deter him. He issued his Emancipation Proclamation, stood his ground, reunited a divided country, and preserved this nation.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower routinely challenged accepted practice in the military, and often found himself on the losing-side of arguments with his superiors in his early career. But, Eisenhower's masterful leadership during the D-Day invasion of World War II showed his thinking was right. He regularly made tough controversial decisions and had to convince those around him to follow his lead. Thank God they listened.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was considered one of the loudest voices in opposition to the status-quo in  American history. He challenged segregation and discrimination in America, and he refused to accept the common belief of the time that black and white Americans would always remain separate and un-equal. His birthday is celebrated annually and his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech is read in schools across our country each year as a testament to his courage. 

Ronald Reagan unveiled his proposal for a Strategic Defense Initiative, later dubbed "Star Wars," in a national speech and was ridiculed by both left and right for proposing such a crazy idea. Interestingly, however, the Soviet Union’s leaders didn't seem to find this new defense system initiative so crazy. Cabinet and military leaders insisted that meeting with the Soviets was a mistake, but Reagan acted on his diplomatic instincts to initiate dialogue, which ultimately led to the end of the Cold War. 

There were countless times that Reagan challenged the status-quo during his political career, but one particularly memorable event was his speech at the Brandenburg Gate. His advisers were alarmed by the line, “Tear down this wall” and insisted he remove it from the speech because it was too provocative. Reagan ignored their pleas, and here is an excerpt from the historical speech that inspired the world and eventually brought down that wall.

Newt Gingrich began a Republican Revolution in the 90's as an effort to take over the U.S. House of Representatives. Most of the GOP party leadership at that time believed Newt was a dreamer with no hope of success because the Democrats had controlled the House for decades. Newt pressed on in his relentless campaign to re-educate young Republicans into believing they could actually win the conservative argument and win their political races as well.  He succeeded at both by winning the House of Representatives and getting his signature legislation The Contract with America through the Congress in a record 100 days. No one has duplicated the accomplishments of Gingrich.

So what does any of that have to do with today?  Simple...the reason we find ourselves in a perpetual state of decline economically, morally and politically is because we have too few truth-tellers willing to stand up and challenge the status-quo on both sides of the divide. We are missing the leadership that is represented by the brave men and women I've described above. We gather in our separate camps to target our enemy and never realize that enemies reside in our own camps who are perpetuating the very problems we are trying to solve. 

Oh, sure.. there are plenty of loud voices, even obnoxious and vulgar voices who claim they are exercising their 'right of free speech' .. but those are not truth-tellers, they are simply trying to antagonize, because there is no real effort to engage in honest debate or to solve problems. Their noise is just an endless rehashing of arguments and objections that have been handed out by status-quo preservers in their camps for decades.

The only way we can see change is if we change what we are saying and doing. Continuing to support the current practice of always blaming the other side, name-calling, dirty politics, and  using prepackaged arguments is driving us deeper and deeper into the abyss. Don't let anyone manipulate your mind. Read both sides of every argument, look at the data yourself. Don't fret when the opposition isn't truthful, just speak out that truth yourself and encourage other truth-tellers to do the same. We can't take back this process by participating in the very behaviors we regularly castigate. We also won't see any improvement if we ignore problems that exist within ourselves or on our team.

Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Are you willing to become a truth-teller? Will you stand up against people you have always respected, examine the truth for yourself, and be willing to reach a different conclusion if the evidence leads you there? Are you willing to take a new path, chart a new course? I hope you'll join me. We need a few more brave men and women to preserve this nation before it is too late.

Scary Times in the U.S.A.

Today I witnessed something that has really put me on edge. A sitting president ignoring portions of our Constitution to enact a new law because Congress did not produce the legislation he was seeking.  I am not sure that most Americans truly appreciate the gravity of this development, so I thought I'd take a few moments to re-visit the events of the day and provide some information about our American form of government. 

President Obama issued an Executive Order earlier today providing children of illegal aliens with defacto amnesty. The provisions of this order mirror legislation known as the Dream Act which has been introduced in Congress in various forms as far back as 2001.  Half a dozen bills introduced in congress related to issues addressing children of illegal immigrants have been rejected.  Because of this, President Obama decided today to unilaterally act to issue an executive order which essentially declares into law what had been rejected in Congress. There is one big problem with this action, however .. the President is not authorized under our Constitution to write law, so where is the authority for such an order?  

Here is what our Constitution has to say ...

Congress has the power to pass laws regarding legalization, naturalization, deportation of aliens according to Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution: "Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization." 

The President has the responsibility of enforcing the laws: Article II, Sec. 3: "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

There is no provision in our Constitution that allows presidents to craft laws unilaterally or refuse to enforce laws they do not agree with.. but this is exactly what President Obama is doing.

What is so scary about this? We have a president that is assuming he alone has the authority to write the laws of this land.  We have three branches of government that were set up to prevent one group or individual from having too much control over the people. Our Congress is the one body granted the task of creating laws precisely because they are the representatives of We the People. But, as a check on the power of Congress, we have a president that must sign legislation to make it law and the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the law. By acting today in this manner, President Obama has bypassed all of these safeguards.  We now have one person who believes he is the sole ruler over the people of this country. This is not the America that is established in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution. We do not elect Kings in America, we elect leaders who represent us. 

What can be done about this? Our Congress must act to demand this order be rescinded. This act is a blatant disregard for the separation of powers established in our Constitution. This must be brought before our Supreme Court and voided. In order to do that, Congress must be willing to suffer the political consequence of opposing an order that is popular with some of our citizens. Will Congress act? Are they willing to take the inevitable criticisms that will accompany a challenge?  Only time will tell.

UPDATE 6/16/2012:

This is President Obama speaking on this issue in March of 2011.

"With respect to the notion that I could just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case... because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed... Congress passes the law, the executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. 

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system ...that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those Congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president."

Liberal Enlightenment

One thing I have always found perplexing.. is the generally accepted premise that the liberal elite are brilliant thinkers. From Harvard law professors to Washington, D.C. policy wonks we hear all  about their liberal solutions to societies ills, but the hypocrisy and pure non-sense that masquerades as enlightenment in the minds of liberals is nothing short of astonishing. To illustrate some of the most contradictory, outlandish, and confused positions of today's liberals I am sharing a few tidbits for your enjoyment.  

Liberal Abortion Logic:
Use sex-selection abortion to kill girls to uphold women's rights

Buck the trend

I am sure I'll raise a few eyebrows with this post, but seeing that I've never really been one to follow popular trends, perhaps it's time for a conservative to speak up on a few timely topics. Even if you don't agree with my summations, I do hope that you will at least pause and reflect on your position on these issues. Here are what I would consider my top five most controversial positions on the issues:

Marijuana should be legalized:  How could legalizing pot be a good thing?  For starters, conservatives pride themselves as looking at the facts while liberals tend to focus on feelings. With marijuana, the facts just don't support continuing this prohibition.  Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. Many normal productive Americans consume marijuana routinely. One-Billion-Dollars are spent annually jailing marijuana smokers. The underground system of marijuana production/sales supports terrorists. Many claim marijuana is a gateway to more harmful drugs, which may be true; but I'd argue that alcohol can also be a gateway, yet it is still legal. We can't make people behave right by passing laws. We need to stop the war on pot and focus our energies on more evil substances like the soaring addiction to prescription medication, spice, bath-salts, and other illicit drugs.

Voting for Republicans is often no better than voting for Democrats: Historically, Republicans have been the bigger spenders in Washington, D.C. Republican President George W. Bush along with a Republican controlled House and Senate ushered in Medicare-Part D which was the largest entitlement program in history until trumped by Obamacare. I will concede that President Obama has definitely helped the Republicans in their argument that they are the more fiscally responsible party by being the biggest spender to date, but that really doesn't justify the deficits piled up by the five previous Republican administrations.  The truth is, both parties spend too much money, and there is little evidence that that trend will be reversed in the near future.

I am voting for Gary Johnson in November:  This was a tough one for me.  I have voted straight GOP ticket since 1984.  I've never missed a vote, and I've always been a staunch defender of the GOP platform.  However, I can no longer just go along to get along. I've finally come to the realization that the system of governing in this country is so broken, that we can no longer continue voting to sustain it in its present form. I believe the Libertarian, Gary Johnson, is the most fiscally conservative of the three major candidates. He does not share my position on social conservative issues, but after hearing his answers in this video to some of those questions, I came to the conclusion that his position on state's rights trumps any concerns I have about his social policy platform:

Now I know many reading this will suggest that voting for Gary is like throwing away my vote.. or worse..it is tantamount to a vote for Obama, but I disagree. With only 19% of voters believing that Romney and Obama are the best candidates, the political environment could not be better for the rise of a viable 3rd party candidate. Gary is on the ballot in all 50 states and appeals to fiscal conservatives and to many disillusioned Obama supporters. If the mainstream media will lift the black-out on news coverage of Gary, I would not be surprised to see him soar in popularity. Even Ross Perot with his wacky imploding campaign garnered 19% of the popular vote ...I can see Gary Johnson with his no-nonsense appeal doing far better. And the best reason to vote for Gary, is that he will fundamentally shift the power-structure in D.C. to a government that is not directed by party power-brokers.

Politics is all about deceiving voters.  Our government is run by people who don't really answer to the voters. Vast amounts of money are spent by candidates in both parties to paint the most flattering picture of candidates, to attack their challengers, and simultaneously cover up voting records that are inconsistent with their stated positions. Candidates who are groomed and presented to the voters as champions of government reform (by both parties), often get into office and join in with corrupt status-quo government. A few incidents have happened recently that illustrate how the rhetoric of political candidates doesn't match their records:

• Allen West and many Senate Republicans want to hang on to certain provisions of Obamacare.
• Mitt Romney has said he would not be opposed to gay couples adopting children
• Seven House Republicans voted against a sex-selection-abortion ban bill
• Obama said he would close Guantanamo, but he didn't close it and built a $750k soccer field there

Most 'Conservative' News Outlets are an arm of the GOP.  Most of the online 'conservative' news outlets as well as Fox News parrot the talking points of the Republican National Committee in their news coverage. I don't mind having journalists with an opinion.. especially if I share that opinion, but I do mind journalists pretending they are offering up the best in conservative journalism while simultaneously towing the Republican Party line, even when the GOP is working against groups such as the tea party and other grassroots conservative organizations. It isn't really a secret.. the RNC is not a fan of the tea party. But, the tea party represents many of the ideals of Reagan conservatism that are detailed in the Republican Party platform. In my view, it is the duty of conservative news outlets to point out the inconsistencies that exist between the GOP platform and those candidates calling themselves Reagan Republicans, but that is not happening. Instead, these so-called conservative journalists are routinely dismissing the protests of grassroots conservatives in favor of promoting establishment politicians. These conservative news outlets need to stop calling themselves conservative and start calling themselves Republican, because that is a much more accurate portrayal.

Now that we are in the middle of an election season, I challenge you to reflect on your own stance on the issues. Does your support of a position stem from your own research and reflection? .. or have you always adopted the positions of your family, friends or your party? Is it possible that you've never really thought about why you support certain positions? What matters more to you.. rhetoric or results? Most Americans are nervous about the direction our government is taking us, but few are willing do what is necessary to reverse the trend. Now is the time to stop being paralyzed by fear and to stop being manipulated by politicians. This nation was built on the premise that we the people could govern ourselves. We are the only ones who can turn this nation around and restore what has been lost.