Why are so many people in the US actually voting to stay poor? Since Barack Obama has become President, the number of people requiring food stamps has increased over 50%. Newt Gingrich recently called Obama the “Food Stamp President” because so many have joined the food stamp program under this administration. Rather than freeing the economy to create jobs, Obama has sought to centrally plan the economy and filter even the most fundamental right, the right to eat, through the government class.   The irony is that those voting for Obama are the ones he is putting on food stamps. They are literally voting to stay or join the rank of poor. 

The opportunity to educate the country is so great. During this coming Presidential debate between our Constitutional Republic ideals and Obama’s Socialist Democracy agenda, the backdrop of food stamps can be a teaching moment. Assuming that most people currently on food stamps would rather be self sufficient; these people may seek to understand how our country works best when the government does not centrally plan the economy.  

Barack Obama makes an alluring argument for his Socialist Democracy; security. When the Austrian people voted in the 1930’s to abandon their sovereignty to join Hitler’s Germany it was with the same motivation; security. We know what happened to the Austrian people as a result of their vote. Why do we accept that Obama has a different motivation? 

This president has followed the same Marist dialogue of past dictators. He has demonized bankers and industry giants as “fat cats”. He implies that those with wealth have done so dishonestly and at the expense of those seeking wealth but having not yet achieved wealth. When auto executives traveled on business jets he suggested that they were evil and out of touch. Yet he finds no conflict in using a 747 aircraft to take him and his wife to New York for dinner.   He does not accept the idea that he, with his significant wealth, can let his own family members live in poverty. Can we believe he cares more about the people he does not know over his own family.

Why then do people believe he is going to help them? Like those that came before him, he seeks to consolidate power in him. He seeks to generate wealth for himself. He only offers food stamps as an appeasement in order to prevent an uprising against him. He is not offering a leg up. He is not even offering a hand out. He is acquiring power in the most underhanded way by suggesting that food stamps will lead to fairness and wealth. 

I look forward to Obama’s defense of this agenda against the likes of Newt Gingrich. 

While Time lent perspective on our current protest movement with comparisons to historical protests dating as far back as the French protests of 1848 to the war protests of the 1960’s, it did not compare our current protest movement to the most famous protest movement in US history dating back to 1776.  Clearly the colonial protests were a prelude to revolution and clearly our forefathers were seeking liberty from an oppressive and corrupt government.  The United States of America was born out of protest.  

What makes the comparison of the US revolutionary war to our current protest movement so striking is the men leading the protest.  Their objective was less government and the desire for personal liberty.  The objective of Occupy Wall Street protests is more government and the desire for personal security, i.e. a nanny state.  Thomas Jefferson articulated this contrast best when he said, “I prefer to live in dangerous freedom rather than peaceful slavery”.  Time magazine is not insightful by recognizing that political systems will grow dysfunctional and corrupt.  Our forefathers established our original Constitution specifically to limit the power of our government knowing that it is a natural tendency for governments to become oppressive and tyrannical.

That is why the current protest movement, specifically the Occupy Movement, here in the US seems in conflict to the protest movement of our founding fathers.  The difference is personified by the Time magazine example of Daniel Thorson.  Time highlights this young man.  He is described as a recent college graduate with a degree in philosophy who is disenfranchised by his prospects for employment.  He joined the occupy movement in the pursuit of more government involvement to provide individual security.  

Time did not reference the Tea Party movement in its review of protesters.  However, the Tea Party movement most resembles our forefathers, hence the “tea party” reference.  This is an interesting state of the State.  We have two movements in our country with disputes against our current government; each taking opposite positions.  The occupy movement seeking to accelerate the migration of our government toward a socialist democracy and the tea party seeking a return to the original constitutional republic.  The occupy movement’s desire for peaceful slavery and the tea party’s desire for dangerous freedom.  The two cannot coexist.  This illustrates another of Thomas Jefferson’s premonitions, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots”.  Who knows, maybe the person of the year in the near future will be the patriot.      

I do find it intriguing that many, predominantly liberal leaning, media outlets like CBS are solidly behind Mitt Romney.  He is clearly being given a most favored nation status by the liberal media.  While it is reasonable to suggest Mitt Romney as a serious and highly qualified candidate representing the Republican Party, it is also reasonable to seek their motive for such favored status.  There seems to be two schools of thought.  The first is to protect Barack Obama.  The second is to protect as much of the liberal ideology as possible if Obama loses.  

If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, the differentiation between the Republican candidate and the sitting President is less than most other Republican candidates.  This is not to imply that Mitt Romney is a Marxist, but merely allows in the Democratic Party to find ways to blur the line between the challenger and the President.  In marketing any product, one would normally seek to differentiate.  However, it this case, Obama is clearly not that marketable.  His record is largely proven to be failed and his methods are not embraced by most Americans.  Hence, the opportunity exists to suggest that there is less difference in each candidate’s methods if Romney were to be the nominee – already Obama is comparing his Obamacare to the plan Romney established in Massachusetts.  

The other suspicion is that most media leaders clearly recognize the American public’s belief that our current President has been a complete failure.  Reference statistics such as, no President has been reelected since Roosevelt when unemployment is above 9%.  Ironically, the only successes in this administration are when Obama renounced his campaign promise and stuck to the Bush doctrine in national security.  The media may be writing Obama off and seeking the most attractive alternative to Obama in their own minds.  

Building on the idea of differentiation, it is time, much like the time when the founders exchanged ideas in the public forum through the Federalist Papers, to have a debate on the fundamental differences between the two major forces in America today.  The debate will happen in the streets if the political machines do not have it as part of the electorate process.  Just look at the two grass-roots movements in the country today.  The Tea Party is demanding our country move back to the Constitutional Republic of our founders while the Occupy Movement is demanding our country accelerate toward the European style Socialist Democracy.  

So going back to the bias in our media to pick the Republican nominee, I am hopeful that the Republican Party nominates a person that can effectively debate the “pro” for returning to a Constitutional Republic.  It will require a nominee with strong communication skills and high intellect.  The nominee will be confronted by a hostile media and a President that is strongly in favor of the Socialist Democracy position.  Michelle Bachmann is a strong advocate of a Constitutional Republic and would represent our country well in a pursuit to return to our core values.  However, I believe Newt Gingrich represents the best person to have that debate against the President.  Regardless, our mainstream media will bias any debate on this topic to favor the Socialist Democracy position.   That is until the Socialist Democracy takes its natural path to shutting down a free press.    

What has happened in the United States since 1972?  The national debt has grown from approximately $400 billion to our current debt nearing $15 trillion.  The US debt rating has fallen to AA+ from AAA.  Inflation has caused our cost of living to be 5 times higher today than in 1972.

Is our quality of life deteriorating because of Wall Street fat cats or because of our government’s failure to keep the trust behind the currency?  A skeptic may see the cynical humor in the notion that our currency references, “in God we trust”, because we should never imagine trusting those governing our nation and its monetary system.    

Governmental officials around the world have increasingly used the treasury as a personal slush fund to obtain power and to hand out favors in return for keeping power.  Those in power seek to create a society dependent on the benevolence of elected officials.  To vote incumbents out of office would be tantamount to voting food off of your own table.  The citizens of Greece are demonstrating today the withdraw syndrome from a dependency on government benevolence.  The axiom is true, “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”  Once you run out as they have in Greece and as we are in the US, there will be convulsing.

So how do we get the trust back?  Our forefathers suggested that we should not expect trust.  Limited government was designed recognizing that a citizenry cannot trust men with power.  Lord Acton was clear when he wrote, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  The solution is not, therefore, to find another leader to trust with our liberty and security; but to limit any leader in his authority to reach into the public coffers.  This will require honorable men to hold themselves to values of self-sufficiency.  Do we have those men left in this country?  

Nearly one-hundred years later, again our country, through civil war, fought to enlarge the population living with liberty and individual freedom.  The great oversight in our original charter was corrected by allowing all mankind to live free.  The hideous practice of enslaving another human being was put to an end.  

Now we have the Occupy Wall Street movement.  The Occupy Wall Street movement is the first time in our country’s history that civil unrest is seeking to give up freedom and individual liberty in the pursuit of security.  While the demonstrators do not do a good job of articulating their message, their basic message is that capitalism is imperfect and they are seeking redress from our government to redistribute wealth from successful capitalists (with an underlying tenant that successful capitalist must be successful by exploiting others) to those that are in need.  Many activists subscribe to the government’s role to manage our country’s resources from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs.  

Not explicit in the Occupy Wall Street movement is the willingness to acquiesce certain inalienable rights such as the right to personal property.  For if you are looking to the government for redistribution of wealth and final arbiter of fair, a citizen must submit some liberty to the government for this to succeed.  

It is unfortunate that these young people have not recognized and learned the valve of individual freedom and the unlimited potential liberty has in creating prosperity both individually and collectively.  Our country is great not because we demonize those that build capital but because we are all equally free to build capital.  I would remind our President of that as well.  Thomas Jefferson said it best, “I prefer to live in dangerous freedom rather that peaceful slavery”.  

Many opinions have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and other publications in regard to the recent Supreme Court ruling that reversed some of the campaign financing rules originally established in the McCain-Feingold legislation. The arguments take a pro or a con position based on free speech versus unfair influence on elections. What I have not seen is an answer to the question; why are organizations willing to spend so much to influence elections?

After all, our legislators and our President take an oath to defend the law of our land as represented in the US Constitution. The US Constitution is very specific and limited by the enumerated powers for the President and the legislators.   What possible value can come from influencing who wins the election? 

In reality, the law of our land has become whatever the President says it is. He and the legislators he controls through shared ideology or threats or bribes no longer feel encumbered by the enumerated powers of the Constitution. This is not a new phenomenon and can be traced back to Presidents and Legislators early in our Republic.   However, just as a marksman whose aim is one degree off at the site will be miles off at the target, so it has become with today’s representatives in Washington.  

Now organizations such as corporations, unions and other special interests cannot know their protections under the law or their obligations under the law because the law is based on opinion of those in power. Our current President has made his unfavorable opinion of banks quite clear. I respect that bankers no longer believe they are protected under the law; property rights will not apply to them as enumerated in the 4^th Amendment.   Hence, if I were a banker I may well wish to influence the election of a new President that does not hate me and have my property in his sights.

Just as the best solution to our rampant drug problem in this country is to educate our children in the dangers of drug use and to encourage moral values and responsibility, we should do the same for our election laws. That is, take away the demand for political influencing by limiting the political influence in our lives.     

I read Stephen Hawking’s excerpt from his upcoming book in which he seeks to make an argument that God did not create the universe. I found his argument reinforced my belief that God did, in fact, create the universe. 

Just this past week I spent time with middle-school students preparing them for confirmation; a portion of our class focused on how we know God exists. There were three reasons demonstrating God’s existence: nature, our conscience and the Bible. 

Dr. Hawking’s detailed discussion on the complexities of our universe and how it is specifically and uniquely set up for our existence underscore the Biblical account of creation. God created the heavens and the earth for us.  

As well, the mere fact that Dr. Hawking is seeking to understand our beginnings is unique to our human conscience.   Mankind has always sought an understanding of where we came from and why we are here. It is that conscience that makes us in the image of God.   Awareness that we are special in that we desire to have a relationship with something bigger than self. 

Most important, and I recommend every explorer of our universe to read, is the Bible. It is the answer key. It is not a science manual nor does God provide detailed blueprints of our cosmos. However, it does explain where we come from. It explains that there is no randomness and that we can have a relationship with our creator. It also demonstrates that God is not bound by physics.   

I respect the fact that there was a great deal of hyperbole surrounding “end-of-life” counseling which was originally part of the Obama care legislation. Governor Palin referred to these counseling sessions as “death panels”. The debate became so political that the subject was removed from the legislation allowing Obama care to pass and become law; but without this element.   

 Now that Obama care is the law of the land, alibi one that is being challenged on constitutional grounds, it is interesting how Medicare administrators have placed “end-of-life” counseling back into the legislation. This is disturbing given on several levels. 

The directive to include end of life counseling in Medicare rate structures was deliberately concealed from the public. It was buried deep into the federal register and no mention was made to the public at large. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported email documentation that at least one US Representative that was pushing for this end around overtly instructed supporters to avoid celebrating this victory. 

As well, on a Constitutional basis, it is the Congress that is authorized to fund legislation, not Medicare. By unilaterally funding services specifically left from the legislation, the administration has again crossed the boundaries of Constitutionality. 

Finally, if end-of-life counseling is so benign, why does it need a separate fee structure? How does this counseling differ from all other patient-doctor communication? Is it not true that the review of all treatment options and the ramifications of each option are included in the overarching office visit? It seems the only reason to segregate this form of counseling from any other involved in treating the patient would be to encourage this counsel. 

It seems to me that the best way to eliminate the hyperbole on this subject would be to operate openly and honestly. This underhanded activity at Medicare and skewed logic demonstrated can only add to the fears we have that our government wants to take over our lives and determine when we are no longer productive citizens. 

The president celebrated his 49^th birthday this week and I can honestly say he is maturing. Our community-organizer- in chief is fast growing into a limousine liberal. Normally it takes generations to move from Marxist ideologue to liberal elitist. 

While he still aggressively bashes business and investors, he is fast becoming comfortable with living in a cast system of privilege. He did not go Harvard, a wellspring of Marxist learning, with a silver spoon in his mouth. He went to develop a solid foundation in Marxist understanding so that he could use this ideology to demonize the capitalist class and take from that class for his purposes. His ultimate purpose of course was to gain power. 

Now in power, he sees no hypocrisy to blast the CEO of BP for sailing as he and his family vacation in Hawaii, Bar Harbor and Martha’s Vineyard. Michelle Obama spends millions of tax payer dollars to vacation in the South of Spain while suggesting to those of us paying taxes to visit the Redneck Rivera on a three-day weekend. Their new cause is the self-gratification of thinking they are doing so much for so many by taking from the middle class to keep the poor from rising up in revolt to the elite class.

It is amazing how fast he has realized that the only value to Marxism is to create an elitist class and to protect it. Many young people go into this ideology as misinformed and lacking historical education with the genuine desire to help those in need.   But few grow so fast and gain so much personally to realize the riches this ideology can generate for those in power. 

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for free minded people to dissolve political bands which have connected them with another through a Constitutional form of government never before experienced in the history of human kind, derived from Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled them, the honorable must declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That these rights are not provided from any form of Government; Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. That when a Government presents itself as the wellspring of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, it ceases to be a government for the people and by the people and thus renders itself outside the principles of our originally established Constitution. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer than to sacrifice for a noble cause. But thanks be to God that history has presented exceptions and that original United States forefathers choose dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. The history of the current President is not the whole of our government’s destructive power over the people and the Constitution but has only accelerated the establishment of absolute Tyranny over the States and of the people. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused to uphold his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. His written record demonstrates his belief that Constitutional authority does not limit the actions of the government. That government is the final arbiter of freedom.   He has determined that the governed will relinquish the government from constitutional limits if the ruler offers a tyranny of benevolence.

He has endeavored to control the population of these States to support his cause toward tyranny. For that purpose obstructing the Law of Naturalization, refusing to protect our country’s borders and supporting jurisdictions such as San Francisco, California which condoned killings within our borders and protecting illegal immigrants committing these heinous crimes. He has refused to defend the sovereignty of our borders and has, in fact, waged a legal civil war against Arizona, our 48^th State for the mere act of protecting its citizens. 

He has forbidden our Governors and Congress from addressing eminent governmental failings such as Social Security, Medicare, and the resulting National debt and instead intimidates and bribes those charged with serving the people into expanding these problems through further government usurpations. 

He has emboldened himself to those in unusual places and distant shores for the sole purpose of apologizing for the greatness of the United States. He has stood firm with foreign leaders in criticism of our own laws and justice.  Within his own family and his own church body, has come a legacy of distain for this country that allows reasonable men to question his motives in office.

He has insulted and lied about those Representatives repeatedly for opposing with firmness his invasion of the rights of the people.   He seeks to separate and disparage free speech and free assembly that is inconsistent with the expansion of our federal government control. 

He has caused others to be appointed Czars, whereby legislative powers are incapable of fulfilling statutory duties and Constitutional checks and balances are removed for the sole purpose of central control.   With this central control he is unilaterally absorbing private sector activity under federal central control tearing one of our most sacred rights to private property and intellectual capacity.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice through appointment of judicial activist judges aligned with his personal desires and opposed to Constitutional boundaries. 

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass the people and eat out of their substance. Most notably is the expansion of the IRS for the sole purpose to persecute an individual mandate on each citizen to support the federal healthcare system.

He has affected to render the military impotent to defense of United States sovereignty and subservient under civil power even when adjudicating military combatants for acts of war.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and acknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretend Legislation:

                Climate Change treaties without the advice and consent of the people

                Cutting off free trade with many parts of the world

                For imposing Taxes on us for TARP and using them for self gratification

                For subjugating our Christian beliefs and limiting the free exercise therein

For the establishment of an arbitrary government rooted in corruption of the few to the expense of the many.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the sanctity of our values.

He has declared us under his protection while waging war against us

He has plundered our labors, ravaged our family values, burnt our most sacred covenants and will destroy the lives of our people

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us by his unwillingness to stand for American values.

In every stage of these Oppressions, honorable men have sought redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be ruler of a free people.

The greatest leaders of our short history share in their honor for and sanctity of the individual. Beware the leader that seeks to own all and share equally amongst the governed. Sanctify the leader such as George Washington, whom turned away the power of King to leave it in the hands of the governed. Honor recent history when Ronald Reagan unleashed the burden on the taxed by removing the yolk of oppressive taxation and restored the right to property. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.

We, therefore, the free minded people of the United States of America, in remembrance of those who sacrificed all in the definition of a Constitutional form of government, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by divine providence  petition this President to resign his office, and this government to eliminate the role of Czar from this and all future administrations, to reduce the cabinet to those originally defined in the Constitution or established through subsequent amendments. We call upon this government to relinquish ownership of all currently owned private enterprise and to seize and desist all coercion threatening the continuation of private enterprise.  We call for States to exercise their sovereignty under the tenth amendment to our Constitution. 

Finally, if the government and the people no longer wish to live by our Constitutional form of government and the rights, privileges and responsibilities implied, we ask that a formal Constitutional Convention be convened. It is time to chose sides.     

Christopher R. Dimes

Walter Williams’ recent column struck me as ironic. In his column he made a thoughtful argument for sucession. His premise was based on one segment of our country believing their freedom under the US Constitution has been violated. 

Our country fought a civil war largely on the same issue a century and a half ago. Many people died to end slavery in this country; the involuntary servitude of one race to another.

How ironic it is that our first African American president has stimulated similar conversation within our nation’s leading columnists. By the tremendous debt he is creating and the takeover of much of the private sector, he is enslaving people to involuntary servitude to the government where he sees himself as master.   Our president should know better than most the value of being free. Yet he promises the same as Plantation owners of early America. He promises to take care of our every need through government ownership and we in turn are to provide him the sweat of our brow and the money in our pockets. However, while he may seem like a benevolent slave owner, be wary of the whip if we fail to turn over the sweat of our brow and the money in our pockets.

Thomas Jefferson, ironically an owner of slaves but a beacon of individual freedom once said, a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have (including our freedom).   

As Americans, this appears to be an important week for the future of our health care. So much has been written regarding the meaning it will have on our nation. My sincere hope is that our two parties will work together. 

There is not agreement on the nationalization of healthcare.   However, bipartisanship can be found across party lines for the sanctity of life, for our constitutional form of government calling out due process and even for protecting our country’s economic security. It is in this that there is hope for bipartisan rejection of the current bill in the House of Representatives.  

The President’s contempt for the unborn children in this country through government funded abortions, his disdain for the rule of law by circumventing the legislative process, and his abuse of the federal purse spending our country out of existence can be rejected on a bipartisan basis. It is thought that our two parties cannot work with each other. However, fifteen percent of our Democrat representation has already joined with Republicans in the fight against this legislation. More are needed. 

Significant opposition to this legislation and the process being undertaken would send a bipartisan message to this President and the American people; the American form of government is special and protects the minority from the majority by recognizing natural rights and limited government.

As well, history in the United States does not demonstrate a high regard for collectivist presidents. Only one Democrat president since FDR has been elected to a second term. Meanwhile, all Republican presidents except for George H.W. Bush have received the stamp of approval from the American people for a second term over the same period of time. This recognizing Gerald Ford was not elected president, losing to Jimmy Carter in his first run for the office. That means, of the four Republicans elected president since FDR; three were re-elected. Inversely, of the four Democrats; only one was re-elected (Note: JFK did not live to run for re-election and Obama is still TBD). 

Why is it that the American people must feel the pain of socialism every eight to twelve years just to recognize capitalism as the best way for prosperity. A wise person learns from their mistakes, I wiser person will learn from the mistakes of history.