Friday, November 30, 2012

Marxist Left, Fascist Right: Twins!

Last week, a self described "liberal" accused me of blind allegiance to Ron Paul.

Today, a "Conservative Animal" (blog name) called me a "paulie" (sic).

For the record, I do agree with Ron Paul, but my opinions were largely in line with his before I began to pay much attention to him, about six years ago. Plus, whatever is wrong with my opinions, a lot of thoughts go into them, and so ad hominem arguments are resented, chiefly because they indicate no respect for my time.

The "Left - Right" paradigm in which we frame political discussions seems more absurd to me everyday.

.
"Left" and "Right" have much more in common than their shared disdain for the simple honesty of Ron Paul.

* They both have the exact same plan to deal with our national debt problem - blame the other party.
* Democrats spoke against Bush's military adventurism; Republicans decry Obama's. But in the end, both keep funding our unsustainable worldwide military presence.
* Neither has any respect for the Constitution: Conservative Animal is offended by the confidence with which Ron Paul supporters cite the Constitution (it's our fault that hardly anyone else reads it?), and  thinks the Federal courts are the sole arbiters of its meaning. Animal thus affirms the hubris of Chief Justice Hughes: "...we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is..." My "liberal" critic thinks the Constitution is subservient to popular opinion, and inadequate for modern life, and since his view is shared by the statists who dominate the federal judiciary, he, like Conservative Animal, is happy for our country to be governed by de facto tribunals of judges.
* Both quickly play the race card when they have no answers: the liberal thinks objections to Obama's massive expansion of the federal government is rooted in racism; Conservative Animal accused me of being anti-Semitic because I think Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty in 1967. Since I didn't mention the Liberty attack in my post on Mr. Animal's blog, I'm guessing somebody searched out my comments about it elsewhere online. I'm opting out of participation on that blog, as the proprieters are given to overbearing and verbose tirades full of ad hominem arguments, red herring, and ipse dixit assertions posing as axioms. See for yourself here.
* Both are ignorant of, or OK with, the President having authority to imprison American citizens indefinitely without charging them.

The Left side of the box is still the box. Ditto the right side.

Ron Paul's ideas are not really profound. He just cuts through the bullshit; and millions of people are ready for someone to do that.

Unfortunately, many more millions are still thinking in the box.

Pray and think. Please.

Monday, October 22, 2012

George McGovern: RIP

I much prefer real liberals like McGovern over modern corporate statists such as Reid, Romney, Obama,  Boehner, and the Clintons.

George McGovern was a Christian gentleman. His chief fault was a sincerely held, but erroneous,
theology that conflated the gospel mandate to care for the poor with the foolish utopian schemes of the welfare state.

He was a real liberal in the same sense that Robert Taft was a real conservative; and both had more in common with each other than either has with the current leaders of our two ruling parties.

On account of foreign policy.

McGovern was speaking against intervention in Vietnam as the Kennedy administration sent thousands of combat troops there and backed a CIA led coup in which South Vietnamese President Diem was killed. Taft opposed involvement in Korea, and NATO - part of the reason the muscleheads running the GOP sabotaged their 1952 convention so that Taft was pushed out in favor of Ike.

Our ongoing foreign interventions - about which neither candidate in tonight's debate will have the slightest qualm - are not consistent with either "liberal" or "conservative" policy.

They fit nicely with fascism, though.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Taney County Republicans are Chicago Democrats

Attend a gathering of Republicans in Taney County, and it's a safe bet that you'll hear derisive comments about Democrats.

Full disclosure: when those comments have been about Barack Obama, I've often agreed with them. There is an unbroken chain of corruption in the Chicago Democratic machine going back at least to the Capone gang in the 1920's. This machine brought the deceased to the polls for JFK in 1960, and lately helped launch Obama's career.

However, there's an elephant in the room - pun intended - when local Republicans focus on the foibles and malfeasance of the Democratic party.

Actually, a couple of elephants.
And maybe a snake or two.


First Elephant

There's no corruption in the Taney County Democratic Party.

Since there's no organized Taney County Democratic Party. There isn't one Democrat on the November ballot for any county office.

The few Democrats who have held office in this county have been honorable people, and have served competently and honestly.


Second Elephant

There is a history of corruption in the Taney County Republican Party. And the biggest scandal that I remember, was brought to light by...

.... A Democrat!

Back in the mid 1990's, the Treasurer of Taney County resigned. The Governor fills such vacancies by appointment, and our governor at the time was a Democrat. Governor Carnahan appointed John Willett,  a young man in his early twenties - and a Democrat.

In those days I had a couple of lively conversations with John at the county fair. We disagreed vigorously, but John was respectful at all times - never insulted my person. When I'd see him in town, he'd encourage me to drop by his office sometime for a visit. I very much regret never having done so.

Later, I learned that John was working high up in one of the twin towers in New York on September 11, 2001. We lost a fine citizen from Taney County that day.

During John's tenure as Treasurer, he came upon a number of checks payable to then County Clerk Ron Houseman and then County Collector Dwain Basham.

Seems these two officials were collecting "commissions" from tax revenues that they were collecting on behalf of municipalities around the county. Checks amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. One check to Ron Houseman was for over $80,000 - yes that's right an eighty thousand dollar bonus. His regular salary was a little over $42,000 at the time.

Charges were dropped on technicalities. Either the law was insufficient, or these handsomely rewarded public servants were well connected.

But they did lose their bids for reelection in 1998. And since then, those elected to the offices of Clerk and Collector have not enriched themselves with lucrative commissions.

Things have changed in Taney County since then - or have they?

Despite being involved in this monumental scandal, Ron Houseman was hired by the county in 2009 to help obtain Obama stimulus funds for the county. The decision to hire him was made by the County Commission on a 2 to 1 vote. The two who voted for the hire were Western Commissioner Jim Strafuss and Eastern Commissioner Danny Strahan.

             Oh, and I'm running against Danny Strahan

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE: The author of this blog is running against the aforementioned Danny Strahan for the position of Eastern Taney County Commissioner.

This is negative campaigning, which brings another IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE: I'm not opposed to negative campaigning IF it is factual and relevant. I very much oppose negative campaigning that is misleading ("my opponent publicly masticates in restaurants") , irrelevant ("my opponent wears a toupee"), or merciless ("my opponent was a Communist when he was 20, but grew out  of it").

This is an issue: Danny Strahan voted to hire Ron Houseman, despite his record of appropriating exhorbitant amounts of public funds for himself.

I would have voted NO on this hire.

What's the difference between the Democrat machine in Chicago and the GOP machine in Taney County?

Scale.

Chicago is much bigger.

Certain prominent Republicans in Taney County have sought to intimidate other Republicans for daring to support an Independent candidate. Back in August, Taney County GOP Chairman Buddy Roberts went to the County Clerk's office to review my nominating petitions (I'm an Independent candidate for the County Commission). At the next GOP luncheon, Republicans whose signatures were found were chastised.


However, there is a double standard in place: Mr. Roberts subsequently contacted the County Clerk on behalf of Jim Strafuss - outgoing Western Commissioner who failed in a bid for the State Senate -  in order to find out how Jim could run as a write-in candidate against REPUBLICAN Jeff Justus, who won the August primary to be the GOP nominee for State Representative, 156th District.

Apparently, Mr. Roberts was recently pressured by other members of the Central Committee - to their credit - to be consistent and affirm that if a good Republican can't support an Independent running against a Republican, then a good Republican shouldn't support a write-in running against a Republican, either.

While it is good that Republican officials in Taney County seek to apply a uniform standard, it'd really be nice if they took a glance at the Constitution - which they've taken an oath to support - and learned that there's no restriction in this country on supporting the candidate of your choice, even if you belong to a political party.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Branson Tea Party Chooses Stripjoint Patron over Constitution

September 28th, 2012

Two thoughts: I miss the old Dairy Queen in downtown Branson, and Cynthia Davis is running for Lieutenant Governor.

How do those two items go together? Glad you asked!


I drove by the old DQ today. Lots of good memories. The owners of a restaurant I worked at as a teen let me drive their Cadillac to take their younger kids there for treats after a busy night.


Alas, now the old DQ has been taken over by Tera-rists. It is inaptly called "Tea Party Patriot HQ" - ostensibly the go-to place in these parts to learn all about patriotism, the Constitution, and family values. Tera Sukman reportedly paid about $200k for the property. In the name of God and country, the Tera-rists have honored Rep. Billy Long, whose idea of reducing federal spending is to vote for a $2.4 TRILLION increase to the debt ceiling, Sen. Roy Blunt, who, as a House member, got a few Republicans to join the Democrats in voting for Bush's TARP bailout, and Ron Houseman, local politician who added an extra $300k, over and above a $42k salary, of the taxpayers money to his income when he was county clerk.


And today, I noticed a huge banner for Peter Kinder, incumbent Lieutenant Governor.


That would be the same Peter Kinder whose hobby is stalking strippers.


There's a family value for you!


The Tera-rists regard Mr. Kinder as a "real" man.


Meanwhile, one of Kinder's opponents is Mrs. Davis, who as a state legislator received the Locke and Smith (as in John and Adam) award for most constitutional voting record. You'd think that would impress "Tea Party Patriots."


The "Tea Party Patriot HQ" is a fraudulent outfit, a front for the Republican Establishment.


The old DQ once served up ice cream and burgers. Now only baloney is served.


After the Kinder sign provoked me today, I googled, and sure enough this subject has been covered by the best journalist in SW Missouri:


Branson Neocons for Porn

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Taney County Needs More Government!

The blight designation that goes with the proposed Enhanced Enterprise Zone (EEZ) concerns me, because the first step in government's use of eminent domain to take private property is a blight designation.

Of course there's never been abuse of eminent domain by the government. Right? So, clearly, I'm just crazy to even bring it up.

Some would suggest that government sometimes takes property through eminent domain simply to establish some enterprise that will produce more tax revenue. But that would be really greedy, and we know there's no such thing as government greed! What a crazy idea!

Besides, I've been assured by those who know that there's no intention to use the EEZ as a cover for more eminent domain abuses (if such abuses ever occurred - and sane people know they haven't). In fact, I'm told that the EEZ board will provide the needed checks and balances to prevent such abuses. Yep: an unelected board will safeguard our liberties, just as surely as Obama's appointed "czars" do at the national level!

My problem is that I've read the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence too. Both are rife with mistrust of government (read 'em and tell me it ain't so). Worse, I've looked into the Federalist Papers. (Shhh, don't tell anyone, but I even peruse the Anti-Federalist Papers sometimes). Our nation's founders were loathe in the extreme to grant new powers to government, and then just trust that said powers wouldn't be abused. Clearly, those founders were certifiable. Just ask Nancy Pelosi, or one of the Republicans who's touting the EEZ as an economic panacea for our county!

It's fitting that many politicans give lip service to Adams, Jefferson and Washington without giving heed to anything they said, since modern politicians have so much more character than those guys did.

These days, imbibing the principles of liberty contained in our founding documents will get you labeled "crazy." I'm so far gone that I wouldn't trust an unelected board to protect my liberties, even if it's members were Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa, and my own mother. I know - that's crazy.  A warped state of mind brought on by too much Thomas Jefferson and not enough television.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

2016: Obama's America

I saw the Obama movie tonight. Very well done Neoconservative election year propaganda - it may succeed where 2004's Progressive election year propaganda film, Fahrenheit 911, failed: it may help defeat an incumbent president.

Much of the content was accurate - Obama has radical, socialist roots, and the anti-colonial mindset of many Progressives (though that term isn't used) is about punishing the rich more than helping the poor.

Nevertheless, the message conveyed by "2016: Obama's America" is very misleading, chiefly on account of what it omits. Example: the peril of our nation's escalating debt is rightly heralded. However, it is presented as exclusively the result of Obama's policies, echoing a theme of this year's GOP convention.  The fact is our journey into bankruptcy has been a bipartisan project with many villains, from Democrats Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Ted Kennedy to Republicans Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush, Billy Long (my congressman) and many, many others.

Likening our country to a ship, I observe that both Democrats and Republicans are diligently drilling holes in the boat. Democrats drill on the port side, Republicans on the starboard. Both are sinking us! The former oft remind us that Bush presided over the first $trillion dollar deficit, but ignore the fact that he couldn't have done so without a compliant Democrat run Congress during his last two years. The latter point out that Obama has added more debt than any president in history, omitting the fact that they currently control the House, where all spending bills originate, and that they voted to expand the debt ceiling another $2.4 trillion. Democrats cite half a truth in pointing out Bush's fiscal carelessness, but ignore the fact that they did absolutely nothing to reduce spending during the two years they controlled both Congress and the White House. Republicans rightly condemn "Obamacare" as unconstitutional, and far more expensive than advertised, yet they passed "Bushcare" - the ill conceived prescription drug plan - which, besides being unauthorized by the Constitution, burdens our posterity with $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Both parties support bailouts of the uber-rich, a massive and inefficient Welfare State and an interventionist foreign policy that is both immoral and  unsustainable. Their rhetoric differs, but the fact is Paul Ryan's plan only reduces spending by $300 billion the first year, leaving intact a $trillion dollar plus deficit.  Ryan counts on future Congresses, not to be elected for decades, to finally bring spending under control. For his part, Obama promised to reduce the deficit during his first two years. He lied - his party controlled the government during that time and didn't even address spending except to increase it.

Both parties voted for the odious detention clause in the 2012 NDAA, which grants power to the president to detain any American whom he deems a  threat - indefinitely, without a trial or legal representation.  A few principled Democrats dissented, like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, but their party leaders supported it, and President Obama signed it. Republicans claim to not trust Obama, but they too went along with this attack on liberty, with only a few exceptions, like Rand Paul and Tom Coburn.

The Democrat and Republican parties are as different as the American League and the National League. You can argue about whether the designated hitter is good or bad, but both leagues play the same game and have more in common with each other than they do with your local softball team.

The Democrat and Republican parties are as different as McDonald's and Wendy's. Each touts its own food as the ultimate value, but continual reliance on either makes us fat and lethargic.

My recommendation in the 2012 Presidential election:

Vote NO.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Steve Maxwell vs. Danny Strahan


Due to the outcome of the August 7th GOP primary, I'm opposing Danny Strahan*, the Republican nominee, for Taney County Commissioner, Eastern District.

For those on Facebook, here is my candidate page, which features updates on the campaign, position statements, personal information, and online discussions.

What are the chances of an Independent candidate winning in red, red Taney County? That depends on how many people are ready to quit doing what has always been done - I believe thousands in our county are ready for new leadership.

In the 2008 General Election, about 8,600 voted in the eastern district. In 2012, I expect a turnout of as many as 10,000. The increase will be due to population increase, redistricting, and high interest in the Presidential and U.S Senate races.

Ergo, 5,000 votes ought to be enough for me to win. In the GOP primary, there were 5,224 votes cast. The winner, Danny Strahan, got 30% of the them (1,585 votes), followed by Tim Connell at 24% (1,236), Alan Lawson at 17% (900), and the remaining 1,503 votes taken by Mike Scofield (502), Travys Saffle (426), Charlie Stiffler (411), and Walter Rogers (164).

Please note that the anti-Strahan vote was 70%. Were Missouri a runoff state (some states require a runoff between the top two candidates if nobody garners 50% of the vote) it is nearly certain that Tim Connell would beat Danny Strahan, and be the nominee. (Although I publicly endorsed Alan Lawson, and stated my intent to stand down if he had won, it is also likely I'd have withdrawn had Tim Connell won.)

For me to win 5,000 votes, I'll need most of the 3,600+ who voted against Danny Strahan in the GOP primary, plus a great majority of the 4,000+  Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents who will vote on November 6th.

Doable, I say!

*NOTE: I DON'T MEAN TO DISMISS THE CANDIDACY OF PHIL BEVERS, WHO WILL ALSO BE ON THE BALLOT - I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HIS VIEWS TO COMMENT. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF HE TAKES,  SAY 1,000 VOTES FROM STRAHAN, THEN I ONLY NEED 4,500 VOTES. 


Friday, August 3, 2012

Corruption, cronyism and the Taney County Commission

The Taney County Commission has decided to move forward with plans for Enhanced Enterprise Zones. The Commission apparently is unaware of any downside to the potential blight designations for several areas of our county, or of any hardships established businesses might face. It's the yellow brick road, leading to the magnificent Emerald City, where industry is plentiful and everyone is happy.

Here's a guy concerned about a  downside (scroll to the bottom of the page) to this rapidly advancing trend. But the wizards on the county commission would prefer he stay away from the curtain behind which they hide, and of course the wizards say "pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!"

Sorry to say, we have been compliant sheople, and have paid no attention to the men behind the curtain. I am as guily as anyone, and more than most.

Shame on us. However, let us now follow Toto's good example, and begin to pull on that curtain, endeavoring to ignore all the smoke and mirrors employed by the wizards.

The EEZ plan has the potential to punish some established businesses, while purporting to boost others. It is local government emulating the national government by attempting to stimulate the economy, and will likely have the same net result: it will worsen the situation rather then help. Why do I say this? Because you cannot create a net gain in capital by manipulating tax policy to the detriment of some and the benefit of others. Such schemes redistribute wealth - they do not create it.

Our local economic malaise has been foisted on us from higher up, by the likes of Barack Obama, George Bush, and Ben Bernanke. Their foolish monetary policies of credit expansion, "stimulus" spending, and increasing the number of bureaucrats overlooking our affairs have debased our currency and scared investors. Local economic enterprise zones are not the solution to this problem - the problem of a shortage of capital. A return to sound money, and a departure from central planning, are what is needed to restore free enterprise. This calls for changes at the national level. The best thing local government can do is to move towards weaning itself from federal largesse (I realize that isn't going to happen overnight, but a mindset towards that end MUST be adopted), and concentrate on providing services citizens have traditionally expected: police, fire, libraries (yes, a county library system would be a good thing in Taney County), etc.  Providing tax incentives to one enterprise, to the detriment of another, is antithetical to America's foundational principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our economy is weak because central planning "experts" have presumed to pick winners and losers, counting themselves as wiser and more just than the free market. These planners, historically operating out of the federal bureaucracy, are now appearing at the local level with no apparent affiliation to the national government - until one looks a little closer.

The EEZ is no grassroots effort - it is part of a national trend to promote a symbiotic relationship between government and business, to the detriment of free market capitalism. It is a grave threat to property rights, as shown here, and the fact that a third of the state of Missouri has already been classified as "blighted" should have any freedom loving person - "liberal" or "conservative" - alarmed, as it portends massive future abuses of eminent domain, to the benefit of businesses who are cozy with their government. The loser is the free market. The fact that an all Republican County Commission is all agog about it demonstrates that FDR and LBJ would feel right at home in today's Republican Party, while stalwart free market advocates like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul would be/are marginalized.



It is likely that Presiding Commissioner Ron Houseman is the driving force behind the expansion of local government oversight of business, given his oft touted connections to Washington, D.C. Remember that Mr. Houseman, prior to being elected presiding commissioner, received the honor of being hired by the County Commission to help our area obtain its portion of federal stimulus funds through his marvelous connections. Commissioners Strafuss and Strahan bestowed that honor on him.

A little historical review regarding Mr. Houseman is in order at this point:

Houseman was the Taney County Clerk for several years, until his involvement in a money scandal resulted in his defeat in the 1998 GOP primary.

As County Clerk, Houseman appropriated hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to himself. He did this along with then County Collector, Dwain Basham, by taking commissions from taxes collected on behalf of municipalities around the county. Houseman's salary was in the 40-45 thousand per year range in those days. But the involuntary contributions of Taney County taxpayers gave him a six figure income.

The court case against Houseman was dismissed, and I'll be happy for legal scholars to explain that event. I'm not arguing the legality of what Houseman did, but that it was egregious enrichment of himself at taxpayer expense, notwithstanding the success of renowned defense attorney Dee Wampler in extricating him from legal consequences.

I've actually heard locals here justify Ron Houseman's actions, or say they were "legal." But I'll donate $100 to the favorite charity of any elected official who will publicy affirm the following statement, and allow me to quote him/ her: "It would be right and proper for the current clerk and collector to prosper themselves the same way Houseman and Basham did in the 1990's."

The point in rehashing old history?

Several points:

1. It is relevant to note that current commissioners Strahan (running for reelection) and Strafuss, (running for the State Senate) honored Houseman with a paid position, despite the aforementioned scandal.

2. Due to a lame local media, an influx of new people to the area, a substantial number of people who live in a state of denial, and the help of his cronies, the egregious actions of Houseman were out of the public mind enough for him to win a very close election in 2010 to the position of Presiding Commissioner.

His cronies provided valuable assistance. Commissioners Strahan and Strafuss helped by trying to frame previous presiding commissioner Pennel as a liar (Strahan) and/ or a criminal (Strafuss) during the "check controversy." (In fairness, it must be said that Pennel did greatly err in that matter, albeit not criminally, as Strafuss apparently hoped).
A couple of years previously, before Strafuss became a commissioner, Houseman informed the commission that there was evidence of nepotism involving then Presiding Commissioner Pennel. Houseman used the term "egregious" to describe Pennel's misdeeds. What was this "egregious" nepotism? Commissioner Pennel's wife, experienced kennel owner and animal lover, was caring for stray, sick dogs on weekends when the county had no resources to do so. Mrs. Pennel did this on her own time, in her own vehicle. Houseman and his former nemesis, turned lapdog, Bob Shanz, knew their accusations were groundless, as subsequent investigation showed them to be. The purpose was to damage Pennel's reputation. Houseman lost two close elections to Pennel in 2002 and 2006. By engaging in a smear campaign against his once and future opponent, he succeeded in swaying enough votes that the third faceoff between the two men went his way.

3. Houseman wanted to be elected to the commission so badly, that he was willing to destroy the man who stood in his way.

4. Given the history of scandal, and the lust for power exhibited by Houseman, it is not unreasonable to be extremely suspicious of which devils might be in the details of any major change advocated by him and cronies such as Strahan and Strafuss.
It is an unfortunate fact that incumbents are very difficult to remove from office, even in the face of blatant cronyism. This year is no different. While western commissioner Strafuss is not running for reelection, opting to run for the State Senate, eastern commissioner Strahan is up for a third term, so as to help promote Houseman's agenda for our county. It is most unfortunate that instead of one good opponent, Strahan is being challenged in the primary by six opponents, of various levels of suitability for office. Since a plurality, not a majority, is all that's required to win the primary, this gives Strahan a real advantage. Of the seven running, the candidate most able to change the direction of county government is clearly Alan Lawson.  For one thing, he is the only one of them to publicly voice the possibility that the EEZ may not be an unassailable panacea. Please give a listen to him on the matter here.



I will vote for Alan Lawson in the primary. It saddens me that his chances are diminished by the split in the anti-Strahan vote. It encourages me, though that he seems to be gaining support as we approach primary day.



I've filed nominating petitions as an independent candidate for eastern commissioner. Should Alan win the primary on August 7th, I will be delighted to stand down.I really urge you to vote for Alan.





Otherwise, I'll be on the November ballot. I don't have an impressive resume of business experience, but I'm not a potted plant either. I have politics in my blood, and an ability to receive input from a variety of perspectives and interests. I believe in the safety of a multitude of counselors, and do not think anyone can be an expert in all matters with which the County Commission deals.  Common sense and an innate savvy about politics will serve me well, enabling me to serve you well.  I know, for instance, that when something sounds too good to be true, like the proposed EEZ, it probably isn't true.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Anyone but Obama?

The meme is being recycled again this election: "Voting third party is the same as voting for Obama."

We've heard it before. You have to vote for whichever big government statist the GOP establishment has chosen...or you'll get the socialist put forth by the Democrats.

Conservatives tell me that Romney isn't who they wanted, but not voting for him is "doing nothing."

"Doing nothing?" Au contraire.

Ceasing to enable an addict isn't "doing nothing." In fact it is very proactive.

The GOP has established a pattern of forcing big government candidates on us: Nixon, Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney. It is because the GOP promotes all the awful things over which it claims to oppose the Democrats that increasingly worse candidates from that party are made electable: Carter, Clinton, Obama. Obama couldn't have been elected had not the Republicans made much of his agenda the norm.

Plainly stated: George W. Bush made Obama electable. Mitt Romney may very well make Lucifer electable.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree that refusing to vote for someone just because he's "not Obama" is "doing nothing."

Friday, March 16, 2012

Ignorant Christians against Ron Paul



DISCLAIMER: The title of this post will strike some as overly harsh. It is meant to be severe, because the consequences of the sort of ignorance exposed here are severe for our country and for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. I DON'T mean to imply that principled opposition to Ron Paul is ignorance; but rather to remonstrate against those who, though DEMONSTRABLY ignorant about issues pertaining to Dr. Paul, insist on maligning the character, intelligence, faith, or patriotism of us who support him. Mr. Petrovic is representative of hundreds of such detractors I have conversed with over the last few years. To him and those of his ilk, who persist in misrepresenting their opponents, an admonition: "Thou shall not bear false witness." - Exodus 20:16.

The following letter was published in the March 14th, 2012 edition of the Taney County Times:
On March 17th the Taney County Republican Party will hold its Caucus to appoint delegates for Missouri's Presidential Delegation to the convention in Florida. [sic]

All registered voters from Taney County are invited and if you value your country you should make an effort to be there.I have been hearing that a 501c4group [READ: Tera Sukman told me Ron Paul supporters would be there] is planning to try a takeover of the Caucus to promote a candidate that would allow Israel to be thrown under the bus, allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, would legalize drugs and basically take the United States into isolationism.

Yes, our beloved country is in trouble but this is not the way to solve the problem.This man is not electable and would only insure [sic] that the real problem is re-elected!

Please if you value this country come out Saturday morning to the Forsyth High School between 8:30 and 10 a.m. and help us elect honorable, thinking patriotic delegates to represent Taney County and Missouri at the National Convention!

Bill Petrovic
Christian, Conservative, Life NRA Member
Rockaway Beach

I replied on Facebook, and invited Bill Petrovic to respond. My first post (edited for syntax):

Mr. Petrovic:

I'm a "true American Patriot" and supporter of Ron Paul. Also, a Christian, and served seven years in the U.S. Air Force.

Non-interventionism isn't isolationism. A strong advocate for free trade (like Dr. Paul) can't logically be an isolationist. Dropping bombs on countries, especially while ignoring the constitutional requirement for a declaration of war by Congress - that's isolationism.

Abolishing the federal Drug Enforcement Agency doesn't legalize drugs - it removes the Federal Government from an area it has no authority to be in, constitutionally. Missouri's drug laws will be determined by Missourians, not by President Ron Paul.

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and would turn Tehran into a toxic waste dump if Iran somehow built a nuclear weapon and miraculously got it delivered. Far more dangerous is North Korea with nukes - whatever happened to that issue?

Due to America's long history of intervention in the mideast, Christians are now fearing for their lives in Egypt and Iraq, and Iran has more influence than they ever would've had we not foolishly overthrown their government in the early 50's and installed the Shah. Predictably, Iranians finally succeeded in overthrowing our stooge, the Shah. So we backed Saddam Hussein in war against them. Hundreds of thousands died.

I can't for the life of me see why Iran would think of America as an enemy!

We also backed the future Taliban against the Soviets, and hobknobbed with Osama bin Laden.

So, yes, we have a very impressive record in foreign affairs - let's go to war with Iran, and see if we can start WW III.

And if I don't like the idea - I'm not a patriot?

We tolerate nukes in Pakistan - you know, our good friend to whom we gave $billions, and in return thay gave safe harbor to bin Laden.

And what about the nukes in China? And India? Oh, and Russia?

One nuke in Iran is not a good thing by any means. But compared to North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India...well I don't see the threat. What I see is Iran selling oil to other countries using currencies other than the dollar - which is not to be tolerated. Our government can't admit that the war it's started (REALITY CHECK: trade sanctions are acts of war, not diplomatic gestures) is about preserving the American Empire - hence the massive myth machine excretes copious helpings of fear and angst to the effect that Iran is capable of nuking Israel and threatening our shores. Sadly, Neoconned Christians help promulgate such nonsense with eschatological superstitions emanating more from televangelists' imaginations than from Scripture.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." Hosea 4:6a

By the way, the promised land extended from the Nile to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18). Israel achieved suzerainty over this area during the height of Solomon's rule (1 Kings 4:21),and actually God fulfilled His promise to Abraham four centuries earlier (Joshua 21:43-45). This I found when looking to Scripture rather than to John Hagee.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a prophetic restoration of NATIONAL Israel yet to come. In that case, it would involve a Christian Jewish group, not a secular movement like Zionism (cf. Romans 11:23), and it wouldn't be a little swath of land along the Mediterranean, but rather a large area extending from present day Egypt to Baghdad.

You characterize Ron Paul as anti-Israel; my guess is you are unaware of the following: "Ron Paul was one of the only Congressmen who voted against condemning Israel for bombing Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981. '[A]lmost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives. ' "

Other myths about Ron Paul's foreign policies are rebutted here:
http://www.ronpaulmyths.com/foreign-policy.php

Please stop with the jingoism and pretending that other Christians aren't patriots if they don't share your eschatology.
Bill Petrovic's nonreply:
Steve, I can't as a Christian support anyone who is pro choice which Paul is! He is also for Same Sex Marriage. And I've stated that I can't support him for his views on Iran. Let me ask you a question, Will you support whoever the Republican Party Nominates even if it isn't Paul????
Note the complete failure to engage: all transmission, no reception. Bill didn't address even one (1) of my points, which were direct responses to claims made in his letter. This is very typical of Ron Paul's opponents. They freely report hearsay as fact, ignore all facts cited against their position, and then proceed to introduce yet more hearsay. In so doing, anti-Paulite Christians routinely bear false witness, apparently with no regard for God's word (Exodus 20:16). They ignore questions posed to them, but insist that their questions be answered.

This is a lamentable state of affairs in the Church purchased by Jesus Christ. Christians disagree about eschatology, a prime factor in ensuing disagreements over politics. This is no license to lie about each other.

Anyway, my response to Bill Petrovic, talebearer:
Bill,

You're mistaken. Ron Paul is against both abortion and homosexual marriage.

As President, Paul would ask Congress to take abortion out of the jurisdiction of federal courts. Since the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, Roe v. Wade would be nullified. This is a different approach then conservatives have been using. Have you noticed that the attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade by getting the right judges in office haven't worked?

Do you trust Santorum on the abortion issue? If so, do you know he voted for an appropriations bill that included funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you know that he supported Arlen Specter for President, when Specter's campaign started with a diatribe against pro-lifers in the Republican Party?

Do you believe that Romney was pro-choice when he ran for office in Massachusetts, but when he decided to run for President he became pro-life? Isn't that a bit much to swallow?

Do you believe Santorum is far more conservative than Romney? If so, why did Santorum endorse Romney in 2008, instead of say, Huckabee?

RE: homosexual marriage. Ron Paul believes marriage is a sacrament, and that the government should stay out of it. He would not interfere if states want to regulate it, or ban homosexual marriage, but he personally thinks the government should have nothing to do with marriage. If you think government is right to be in the marriage business, that is your opinion - it doesn't give you the right to misrepresent the views of Dr. Paul.

Will I support the Republican nominee? As of now, absolutely not! But I will reconsider when you address my points about our history of involvement with Iran, and explain to me why Billy Long and Roy Blunt voted to give President Obama power to have me arrested by the military with no right to habeas corpus, if Obama thinks I'm a threat. The "Tea Party Headquarters" in Branson supported both Long and Blunt. And Long and Blunt support Romney, as Santorum did in 2008. I want my kids to live in a free country, and vote accordingly.
More thoughts came, that I hoped Bill would address, especially GOP complicity in the pernicious clause hidden in this year's Defense appropriation:

Bill,
Your letter also claimed that Ron Paul is unelectable.


Ron Paul is the most electable of the GOP candidates. That's because the others are very similar to Obama, who is smart enough to use that fact against them.
Imagine Santorum trying to denounce Obama's wild spending, and Obama comes right back and reminds everyone that Santorum voted to raise the debt ceiling five times, and supported "No Child Left Behind."

Imagine Barack Obama saying this to Rick Santorum:"Senator Santorum, I agree with you that spending needs to be reigned in, but how do the American people take you seriously when you voted for George Bush's unfunded prescription drug bill that now costs taxpayers $60 billion per year. And far, far worse than that plan projects $16 Trillion, that's trillion with a T, in unfunded liabilites, according to the ultra-conservative Club for Growth."

How's Santorum going to answer that?

How?

Now, imagine Ron Paul attacking Barack Obama for his wreckless spending.

Obama responds: "Yes, you've earned the name 'Dr. No', 'cuz you know how to say 'no.' But folks are hurting, and 'no' doesn't help the single mom who can't afford daycare so she can look for work, or the young woman who's birth control pills are going sky high because of cruel restrictions supported by Republicans."

Dr. Paul responds by sharing about the times he delivered babies for free, and then gives a short tutorial on the Constitution, and how irresponsible it is to promise to take care of people with unsustainable entitlement programs.

Then Dr. Paul points out the hypocrisy of Obama's airstrikes against Libya his push for war with Syria and Iran, after campaigning on opposition to Bush's wars.

Paul already polls competitively against Obama. If the American people had a chance to focus on the differences between them, they'd be much more enthused about Paul than anyone is about either Romney or Santorum. </>
Just as the crickets prepared to start their symphony, Bill Petrovic, caught VWI (voting while ignorant), issues another bit of hearsay, while carefully avoiding every point I raised:

Sorry Steve, I've heard with my own ears Paul say Same Sex Marriage is OK.
Unsuccessful thus far in my attempts to get Bill off his script and into a dialogue, I go all provincial on him:
Bill,

This is Missouri. Show me!


Another appeal by me...

It would be nice if a Santorum supporter - Bill, anyone - would address some of the points of my first post in this thread.
...Results in an Edith Ann moment, courtesy of Bill:
Steve, you can't change my mind about Ron Paul. He can't win the nomination so don't push Him to me! Let Eric vote for him, I Won't..
And that's the truth! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJMKupYF14I