Conservative Response to Liberalism - Part #2

In a continuation of the post below, here is part two of my response to Mr. Brian McKinley's analysis of what liberalism is.
The next section put forth in the "Proud to be a Liberal" article by Mr. McKinley is as follows:
Liberalism is "Liberty." It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another's rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.
My first thoughts after looking at this part draw me back to the first line over and over, where it says '... the freedom to do as your conscience dictates'. This is being shown every day to be a major sticking point between conservatives and liberals. It was brought up in the comments on the previous post (thank you J.C. Klemencic). Perhaps a good place to start would be where I personally view this subject.
Liberalism holds to a moral relativism that is degrading the society. This relativism that is pushed onto people teaches that things may seem wrong to some people and right to others, and both are fine views. This view, then, appeals to the very basic, sinful side of human reasoning. It allows the person to justify their thoughts and actions, no matter what they are, or how selfish they are. For example, abortion as I see it, is murder of an unborn child. However, someone holding onto relativism can speak of the life of the mother, the quality of life the family will have, etc. and try to legitimize it all in their mind. Of course, even the thinnest veil of legitimacy is enough when your mind is wrapped up in relativism; which then convinces the liberal that anyone who doesn't think that way is 'behind the times' or 'not as sophisticated' as they.
Many conservatives, (not all, as I dare not lump all into this group), hold to a different set of moral beliefs. It can be called original sin (if the morality originates through the person's religious views) or I've also heard it said to be a black/white morality. Either way, it states that certain things in this world are right, and certain things are wrong. For example, murder and theft are wrong, where taking care of the poor and weak is right. By putting morality into these black and white categories of right and wrong, we are led to have certain misgivings that are held to strongly. This also provides a base with which to look at the world; it provides a reasoning behind the thoughts and conclusions one comes to about the world around them. There is, then, no need for long debates over whether something is moral or not. It simply is right, or it is wrong, end of story. I, personally, receive this moral view through my religion, though some come to it by simply looking at the world around them and understanding that there is right and wrong.
This morality is not 'out of touch' or 'behind the times' at all, but holds to what we all have in our conscience; what we all know to be right and wrong.
I don't mean to sound preachy here, but moral relativism, when pulled to it's conclusion, destroys all value of human life. If everyone who believed strongly in moral relativism, (even if they didn't realize that's what it is called), thought about what they were doing, this world would destroy itself immediately. There would be no reason to have children, as it is to much of a burden for the self-gratification seeking relativist. Besides, why not seek self-gratification, this world is all there is, right? Anyway, there would also be no reason to value human life at all. What makes us more valuable then, say, an animal, or a tree? (PETA comes to mind here) So, we could all just kill each other, and it wouldn't really matter. Besides, it might be seen as right and just in the killer's eyes to kill. How can he be wrong if there's no morality?
As you can see, it's a dangerous path. The only thing stopping a relativist from going that far is a little piece of the conscience drawing a line and not taking relativism to its full conclusion.
So, a conservative, (at least most conservatives), believes that there is a moral right and wrong, and uses it as a guide post with which to look at the world. It is not impeding someone else's rights. It is, simply, right or wrong. It is valuing human life. And, through valuing human life, a conservative then is brought to valuing human opinions, valuing human work ethic, valuing human freedom, and valuing human liberty. Conservatives do not believe in taking from the rich people to give to the poor. Conservatives believe in helping that poor person to work hard and raise themselves up from their situation into a better one.
Basically, the response to Mr. McKinley's entire look at 'Liberalism is Liberty' all comes down to where the morality comes from. That, also, of course dictates how you, the reader, will react to what I have just said, and really how this entire debate is framed.
I am at a loss of where to go from here, and this post is getting quite long, so I will leave this open ended for now and gather my thoughts on it some more. Feel free to leave comments below and let me know what you think. As always, thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and show your involvement in the open debate that has made this country what it is today, and will continue to guide it to what it's future will be.

Conservative Response to Liberalism - Part #1

Today I am going to start a series of writings in response to an article I found while wandering the Internet entitled "Proud To Be Liberal - Why Liberal values are American values" by Brian McKinley. In it, McKinley attempts to show that Liberalism is what being American should be. So, piece by piece, I will offer the rebuttal for conservatism... and yes, I have invited Mr. McKinley to join the conversation if he feels so inspired to do so.
First off, I would like to assert the fact that I do not assume all liberals wrong all the time. I simply want to take the time to point out the differences between liberalism and conservatism as I see them. And no, this doesn't mean the difference between Democrat and Republican. This is more about an ideology; a way of thinking and looking at political problems. So, anyway, here is the first section of Mr. McKinley's article.
"Liberalism is "Life." It is freedom from physical dangers that can kill or disable us. The Liberal believes it is a nation's job to protect its citizens from physical harm, whether from external sources, such as hostile nations, or internal ones, like crime, disease, or hunger. Without the solid ground of physical well being, our nation and its citizens cannot enjoy the benefits of being free. Liberals believe in a strong military, well suited to defend the nation. Liberals believe in good laws, hard-working police, and a just legal system to protect its citizens from crime. Liberals believe in affordable health care for everyone, to keep our people strong. And Liberals believe in the availability of food and shelter for its needy, not as a hand out but as a reasonable step in moving all Americans toward self-reliance and the freedom that comes with it."
Well, I would say that we are not far away from a common path here. Conservatism is also life. Conservatives believe that this country's government was put in place to protect it's citizenry from the threats that would seek to damage it. Conservatives also believe, of course, that people should be safe from the worry of disease, hunger, and crime. It's how to go about that protection that brings about the difference in ideas.
First off, the protection from outside threats, such as terrorism or hostile countries. A Conservative holds that a strong military is the best way to safety. If a country looks on the US and knows that they will be destroyed immediately with any sort of offensive action against us, they will seriously think twice before doing any harm to us. For instance, if you look at the history of the Cold War between the US and Russia, the real turning point came when Reagan proposed the 'Star Wars' missile defense system. This prompted the Russians to put so much into there military spending to try and keep up with us that their economy effectively collapsed. They were left with no choice but to back off or destroy their own people. A strong military is the best defense system. (To give a modern perspective on this, President Obama is currently slashing huge amounts of money from defense budgets, during a time when the US is being threatened from many countries around the world. To a Conservative, that is a dangerous idea.)
As far as protection from crime, disease, and hunger, a Conservative believes that the best way to do this is to promote a system which encourages and allows the individual to freely prosper. The citizenry's health and well being can be assured through providing a climate that is free of obstacles blocking freedoms, like high tax levels. For example, if a business is thinking of expanding outward to produce more goods, the first thing it will look at is taxes. How much does the additional tax burden cost? Then, or course, there is the loopholes to jump through for building on new land, the licensing and restrictions put in place by local, state, and national governments to take into consideration, etc. It quickly would discourage many businesses from expanding. But what if that business was in a climate with low taxes, so that was not a big concern? What if the business was in a climate that promoted business expansion? What if the business didn't have to work 3 years in order to get through the loopholes and obtain the licensing necessary before being able to expand, when those additional goods may not be in as high of demand anyway? This business then becomes an economic boost. It can grow, and hire more workers, and give those workers benefits they may not have access to. This business creates a competition in the workplace. Are the wages/benefits good there? More quality workers will try to get the job. Are the wages/benefits bad there? Workers will find elsewhere to work.
This is capitalism and Conservatism working hand in hand to ensure that the economy is strong, thus ensuring people have the access to the health and wellness they desire. Plus, if there is more opportunity for business to grow in a low tax environment, there will be more business, more population, more housing, more schools, etc. It all goes hand in hand. Even Liberals would end up happy in the end, because all the new businesses and housing and services, while getting taxed at a much lower rate, would end up bringing in more revenue to local governments just by size.
So, Conservatism believes in peoples freedoms through economic expansion and competition; ie: capitalism. If you start on that side of the coin, the bottom end of the spectrum will be taken care of naturally. And, as a bonus to the whole thing, the local governments will have more money in the end to support shelters for the homeless, police and fire stations for protection, etc. Liberalism says to start at the bottom and work upward. Prop up the poor by taxing the top end. This only serves to stifle economic growth and lead to big government.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post. I know, its getting long, but it is important... I believe it to be, anyway. As always, feel free to comment below and open up this conversation.

A Government Out of Touch - A Call to Return to Our Roots

Well, it's now four days out from the nation wide tea parties. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens got together all across the country to let their voice be heard; no more big government; no more out of control spending; and no more disconnect between the people and those that represent them.
Of course, as expected, most media outlets gave very unfavorable coverage to the events. I am not surprised at all about that. I am, however, surprised at the White House response. ABC's Dan Harris on Good Morning America reported on April 15th the following - "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties and will hold his own event today." Isn't this a perfect example of what the protests were really about? When the government doesn't represent the people, the government no longer can be called effective.
A majority of Americans did not approve of their tax money being used for the TARP funds, as passed under George Bush, and yet our representatives passed it. A majority of Americans did not approve of their tax money being used in the Stimulus Bill, and yet our representatives passed it. A majority of Americans do not approve of abortion being funded by taxpayers (or abortion at all), yet our government is now doing just that. This is not how our government is supposed to work.
“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” --Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
This quote shows exactly where we are today. Our government, a necessary function that needs to have limits pressed on it, is running out of control, breaking down constraints at every pass. This big government system cannot stand forever. It will grow to a size so big that it will cripple the economy and tear away our freedoms.
And yet, there is a simple answer. It's called the Constitution of the United States. It's the document that says how the government is supposed to work. It puts limits where they need to be, and spreads power with checks and balances as to create control. Articles 1-7 explain exactly what the government can and can't do, and how to do it. The Amendments afterwards dive further into details. That's where the answer is. If our representatives do not hold to the constitution, vote them out. They all take an oath to do just that. What if the government wants a program that isn't directly under their power as given in the Constitution? Amendment X has the answer: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, as always, I ask not for some extreme revolution, but a returning to a time when the Constitution was upheld. We all need to be informed, as an informed citizenry is the only way to ensure the freedoms and liberty's we all take for granted continue. It is fine if we disagree, that's what this country is founded on, and debate is protected in the Constitution. However, if we all understand where the debate has to start, at the beginning, then we can have a firm foundation with which to grow on.

Tax Day TEA Party - My Impressions

I attended the TEA Party in St. Paul, MN yesterday, to show my support of fiscal responsibility, (the government not overspending), limited government, (the government not in the way of peoples freedom), and free markets, (the government letting businesses work).
The crowd estimates for this party were between eight to ten thousand people. Multiply that by the hundreds of tea parties going on across the country and you have a huge event. Now I hope the country was listening.
Of course, many media outlets were not willing to just report the story as it was happening. CNN even went so far as to demonize and harass those attending. ((Watch the video here)) This is showing what conservatives have been saying for a long time; the media is blatantly and unashamedly bias. Every report I could find either hugely downplayed what was happening or linked the people in attendance to "extremists".

Extreme? How extreme is a rally that starts with the Pledge of Allegiance? How extreme is a rally that numerous times broke into chants of "USA, USA"? How extreme is a rally of people who see a news helicopter and turn around to wave? (I thought that was a bit corny myself, but it did go to show how peaceful the demonstration was). Most rallies are liberal in nature. They involve screaming and chanting, they often times have some violence thrown in (RNC Welcoming Committee for example), and tend to be very resentful to any authorities. This is why the media loves to report on rallies. There tends to be something violent happening, and something 'exciting' to show on TV. These TEA Party rallies were not like that. They were sane, peaceful, and had a very easy to understand message - stop spending our money like there is an infinite supply of it.

So, as the country moves forward, where do we go? I sincerely hope that we can move forward in a direction where the conservatives of this country are not afraid to say what they believe; not afraid of being demonized by the media or even those around them. I hope for the country to hear the conservative voice and listen to what they say. But most of all, I hope for a country that is informed about what is happening and willing to get involved with what is happening. Let's all be open to debate, open to conversation, and open to involvement in the process of this country. I leave you now with my favorite picture from the rally.

Comments on "The Dirty Dozen" - Heritage Foundation Research

The Heritage Foundation, (a policy research group), has released a list of twelve policies which the Obama administration has put in place that show "disregard for the civil society of American life." I would invite anyone who is interested to view the list here, and I would like to add some of my thoughts on the subject (though not on all twelve topics addresed; I will leave those to you).
The first on the list is the administrations attack on charitable giving by the wealthy of this country. The President's budget would decrease the amount of money that is deductible on taxes from charitable giving, taking away part of the built in incentive to donate to charity. This will undermine the money flow that so many charities count on for their existence. I understand why Obama wants to do this; more tax money flowing into the government which means bigger government. I question, however, why he cannot stop expanding government and instead cut spending. If the growing government trend continues, we will become a nation who cannot afford to make these private donations to charities. This would allow the government to chose which charities exist, as our tax money would be split between whomever they chose. Sounds like a dangerous picture, right? And, of course, we know that faith-based charities are already out of the picture, as Obama has reversed a Bush administration policy to include faith-based charities in the funding lists. You may say that I'm taking this too far, but I am only looking ahead to where the trends inevitably are going.
The Obama administration has also written a new executive order, (no deliberation or vote on these), which could be set to go into place soon, stating that doctors and nurses can no longer morally object to performing certain procedures, such as abortions. This would force all hospitals and clinics across the country to perform abortions, even if there are moral objections by the staff. This is a dangerous command. The Catholic-run charity hospitals have already threatened to shut down if Obama goes through with this order, citing the fact that they would never perform abortions in their buildings. This would have a huge impact, especially in urban areas where many poor depend on these charity hospitals for care. Also, many doctors and nurses, morally objected to the abortion procedure, have talked about quitting their practice. Obama would essentially shut down hospitals across the country. Of course, this would open up the way for government funded hospitals, (our tax dollars), to be set up and 'save the day', another sign of growing government. If a big government is what he wants, he certainly has found a good way to do it.
On the same abortion note, Obama wrote and signed an executive order lifting the ban on so-called "family planning groups" overseas from receiving US taxpayer funding. These groups perform abortions on demand, so much so that many countries in Europe are having their population stagnate due to the number of abortions being performed. And our tax money is now helping to fund it all. First of all, why is our tax money being used overseas to fund these types of groups? That doesn't make sense in and of itself. We have plenty of use for our tax money here at home; and then to use our money to fund abortion, which the majority of Americans object to? Absurd is the only word that comes to mind. How can the land of "life and liberty" be funding the murder of children around the world? Our own President supports not only partial-birth abortion, but what is known as "post-partum abortion", the killing of fully born children if the parents don't want them. It is a sad day in this country when life is snuffed out on a whim; when the self-centered society we have turned into becomes so selfish that would-be parents would rather have no responsibility for there actions and kill a child than take that child and care for it, or put it up for adoption so someone could give that child a chance to live. God help us for condoning these acts. Life is not to be thrown away, but cherished. We are not to play God and decide who shall live or die on a whim. Shame on us.
As for the rest of the list, you can look at it and decide what you think here. I only wanted to give a brief look at a few topics. I thank the Heritage Foundation for the work they are doing to ensure the life, liberties, and freedoms we all hold onto continue in this country; and I thank you the reader for taking the time to see what I have to say and become informed about what is happening in this country. Until next time, thank you all.

Obama's Silence Speaking Volumes - An Ideologue in Action

I have a question for the President. Why the silence?
The Somali pirates have captured a US merchant ship. In an effort to free his crew, the captain gives himself to the pirates as hostage. Now, he is being held in the middle of the ocean on a small boat, which is out of fuel, as a hostage while the US Navy is staring them down. A mid-ocean standoff of sorts, with more warships on the way and negotiators from both sides working for an answer to the problem. Just this morning, the heroic captain made an escape attempt, trying to swim away, but was captured again by the pirates. Sounds like a new TV show on Fox, (maybe an episode of 24), but this is really happening, creating headlines all over the country. A well publicized story, full of suspense, involving a US citizen being held captive. You would think this would be something the President would want to comment on, right?
Well, you wouldn't be thinking of Obama. He was asked during a press conference to comment on the situation, and responded by saying "Guys, we're talking about housing right now." He then ushered the reporters out of the room.
Reality check time. First of all, the "pirates", as everyone likes to call them, are not pirates, not just mere criminals. They are terrorists. They are using terrorism to try to get money and power. They may be using piracy to do it, but they are terrorists. However, as I noted before, in my March 25th post, the administration doesn't like to use the word terrorist anymore. So, we call them pirates.
Second of all, this administration is so concerned with controlling the focus of the public that this distraction can't be talked about. In a look back at the time he has been President, he has constantly stayed on target with 'getting the big things done'. His rhetoric is always the same. His teleprompter always reads the same lines. He has become an ideologue; a walking mouthpiece for the liberals of this country. And now, we have a situation with a US citizen, held hostage by a terrorist organization in the middle of the ocean, surrounded by US warships, and he can't even go off message for a moment to say anything about it.
This country may have voted for a President, but they got an ideologue; a vision of liberalism in America that is so focused and determined to accomplish it's goals, it can't break course for a moment. This President is buried in the rhetoric and visions he has and unable to move away from it. Many would say that is a good thing, that he is focused on what he has to accomplish. I say he isn't being a leader. He isn't being involved with what's happening; he's only involved with what's on his mind (or teleprompter) at the moment.
I really do wish the best for this country. Looking at this administration's actions over the past few months, however, has made me quite afraid of the direction we are going in. I ask us all to be aware of what's happening in this country, be prepared to talk about, and be ready to defend your views. Our country is changing, so lets be ready for what lies ahead.
And, of course, in the next few days, watch for Obama to be told what to say about the Somali terrorists. He can't stay silent on it forever. People want him to say something.

The Faith Our Country Was Built On - Not Worship of the State

I will start of by saying that this is a sensitive subject. Perhaps if you would like a longer discourse from me on the subject, you can email me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com and I will try to go into a bit more depth than I do here. But, as with any subject of serious significance, it is always going to be argued and fought over. So anyway, here is the video clip of President Obama in Turkey.
((Video Here))
In this video, Obama treads into water that I feared him going into, and does so on an international stage. He calls us a "secular nation" and also a "nation of citizens". In other words, a nation which doesn't have it's guidance in God or faith; doesn't have it's morals coming from a firm foundation, but instead uses a moral system that changes with the times and situations (moral relativism); a nation of people who have to look somewhere for guidance and will lean on their government, not themselves, their faith, and the freedoms and liberties granted to them.
It may not seem like a big statement that Obama made, but every person has to put there faith in something. I have learned this is always true, and with some deep self-searching, it can be figured out to be true by anyone who is honest with themselves. Where that faith is put determines a lot about the person. If a person puts their faith into God and religion, they have moral absolutes, right and wrong, black and white, a reason and purpose for their thoughts and actions; if a person puts their faith into government or self or any other man made group/thing, you then end up in inevitable moral relativism, loss of sanctity for human life, and a de-valuing of human experience.
So, what did the founders of this country think of religion in the citizenry? Here's John Adams, the second President of the United States:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature."
How about Benjamin Franklin, one often pointed out as the 'un-Christian' founding father of this country. What did he have to say?:
"I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe; that he governs it by his Providence; that be ought to be worshipped; that the. most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children; that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as be left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it."
How about one more? Thomas Jefferson, perhaps:
"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigm of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
I don't mean to force any thoughts or religion on anyone. I only mean to demonstrate hear that this country was founded on religion. This country was founded on faith and belief and moral absolutes and working towards a higher purpose. This country was not founded on moral relativism, worship of self and of state, worship of material things, or any other.
Mr. Obama, you have worked hard in your overseas trips to make friends with the nations of the world, and for that I applaude you. But, please be careful in how you speak. Do not take away from our heritage as a country founded on the principles of religion. We do not worship government, or hold to government, but hold strongly to freedom, to liberty, and to faith given to us from above.
As the Declaration of Independence states (added emphasis mine):
"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."

Government In The Way of Freedom - In Response to Peter Orszag on the Jon Stewart Show

I was directed this week to watch the following videos of Peter Orszag, the White House Budget Director, explain the budget on the Jon Stewart show. Here are the links:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=222776&title=peter-orszag-pt.-1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=222777&title=peter-orszag-pt.-2
I thoroughly enjoy listening to people with views different from my own and also think that Mr. Orszag is a brilliant man. He explains himself and this complex issue of the budget very eloquently. As I listened, I had to pause many times to gather my thoughts, and this is what I came up with.
First of all, Mr. Orszag said that they have inherited a terrible deficit. This is true, as President Bush overspent and built debt, however, it is not true that Obama is coming to the rescue. Bush's deficit during his eight year term was a grand total of $1.3 trillion dollars with his last year in office bringing in the biggest piece of that with $482 billion overspent in one year. Obama's outlook on eight years totals $15 trillion dollars. ((See chart here)) I understand completely that is a long outlook and they plan to change things to help cut that number down, but $15 trillion in deficit spending in 8 years? That's a lot of our money; a lot of borrowed money. Why can't government, instead of saying they need more money to fund themselves and grow government, say they are cutting back spending? This is the fix that stops the tax raises, that stops the borrowing, and that stops government intrusion into our personal freedoms. Not talked about in the above interview is the fact that this budget, while proposing huge deficits, also is piling on new taxes (in the range of $686 billion in new taxes by the end of the ten year outlook). Treat the taxpayers money with the respect it deserves is all I ask.
Which brings me to my second point. Jon Stewart asks why the government is allowed to play by a different set of rules then we the people are. That is the point of true conservatism (notice the emphasis on true conservatism, not moderate conservatism). The government's spending is so out of control, we are forced to spend borrowed money, increasing our debt, or raise taxes on the people of this country. Neither option is good; yet President Obama is planning doing both.
Also, during the interview, Orszag admits very openly and without shame that the White House is telling people to leave certain companies, and wants the authority to reach more companies than they currently can. What? Since when is the President the overseer of private company's actions? Since when has the President looked into companies and told people to leave because he didn't like the way they did things? This is not freedom and liberty, and this is certainly not capitalism. The President should not do this; the free markets should. If a company is failing, it is up to the company and no one else to do something about it. And it is certainly not up to the President to use taxpayer money, or money borrowed from foreign investors, to help them along. If a company fails, it can either drop out and move aside for someone else to come in and provide better service, or it can file Chapter 11 and restructure itself properly and efficiently. That is how it is supposed to work. Yet now our tax dollars are invested in banks, in car companies, and many other businesses. Why? Let the markets work and move on.
This is where people like myself are coming in with the idea of 'socialism'. The government moving in and firing employees of companies as it pleases, taking over businesses to run them they way they want them to be run, running what many would call a 'nanny state', where it is not people with the freedom to control their money and life as they please but the government there every step up the way helping people along; that is the groundwork of socialism. This country was founded on the idea that people would do what they could to succeed without interference from the government. If you failed in your attempts, you would get help not from the government and the taxpayer's money, but from the local charities, churches, and organizations set up for that purpose, who fund themselves through the goodwill of the people. National government was not meant to be the all powerful government; neither was state government; neither was local government. Yet now here we are, with the idea that we all should lean on government to get by, to help us through, to make it work; that's not how it should be.
I could continue to go on for a while, but will stop myself for now, as this is getting to be quite a large post. Thank you for reading and feel free to comment or email me at kelbylovelady@gmail.com. I love getting feedback and conversation. And as always, stay informed, aware, and ready for conversation, because that's the groundwork that a free America, full of liberty, is built on.

In Response to Comment on "A President Crossing the Line"

First of all, I would like to thank you, whoever you are, for sharing your thoughts and putting yourself forward. That is what we as Americans need to do; discuss the situations at hand openly and freely as the founders, as the founders desired. I would like to respond to what you said, and, as always, feel free to continue this conversation too, either here or with me personally at kelbylovelady@gmail.com.
First off, I don't want to try to put myself forward as a great thinker, someone who feels they are above the rest; someone on a 'high horse'. I am not at all. I am an average person, making average wages, living in an average small town. I'm sorry if my comments seem very forward and blunt, but I feel very strongly about what I am doing here. I am not trying at all to put down the American people for the choices they make. Do I feel they made the wrong choice in the last election? Yes. There is nothing different in me saying that now and the last eight years of everyone (including the so-called impartial media) ripping into Bush at turn of the shoulder. Part of the Democratic process of this country is people who are willing to stand up and oppose the ideas that are put forward because they whole-heartedly feel they are wrong for this country. I don't want to see wrong happen to this country in the same way that I'm sure no one wants to see wrong happen to there families, or even themselves. I'm just doing my part to defend the freedoms we all take for granted every day and continue the tradition of open debate.
So, to answer the question of "what I am doing here" directly, I am holding strong in my views, putting them forward for all to see because of my freedoms accounted to me by the Constitution and my Creator, and being prepared to defend myself and my ideas when need be. This is open conversation; freedom and liberty at its best. I'm not asking for everyone to agree with me, but to be willing to talk about it.
Now, on to the second part. I, as a Christian, in no way have meant to use God in a sarcastic statement, and have never meant to insult anyone. "God help America" was not meant with any sarcastic tone behind it, though I understand how it may read that way. We, as Americans, really do need God's help if we are to pull this country back towards what it can be at it's best. Furthermore, I believe that Christian love can be shown through caring about what is happening in this country, and working to help this country succeed. God doesn't only work in love, but also in convictions and trials. Please don't get me wrong, the love of God and the mercy shown every day by Him is amazing in itself, but Jesus didn't show his love of man by showering everyone with "worldly love". He often times rebuked the people, even those closest to him, in order that they may grow in understanding and maturity. I do not believe that what I am doing here is in any way compromising my Christian faith. In many ways, I think it is expanding it; right now is a perfect example. Yes, our sinful natures are the driving force behind what is happening in this country, but that doesn't mean we can't fight against it. The apostle Paul told us to put our sins behind us every day; he wants us to fight.
As far as what we can do in our daily lives goes, I understand how it can be hard to see in my writings. In national politics, we are only able to do so much as individuals, but I believe that our greatest responsibility is to be aware of what is happening; to be informed citizens who understand what is going on in our country and ready to react when able. When we are aware, and holding discussions with people we know; when this country is engaged in what is happening; when people understand politics in much more than a "vote every four years and not care any other time" way; that is when this country is at its best. My call to every citizen is to be informed and concerned. I'm not saying that we all need to be involved in politics everyday, all the time. Being informed is just a matter of knowing what is going on in this country and being willing to form an opinion on it.
Lastly, I would like to take the time to thank you, the readers of my writings, for taking part of your day to read what I have to say, and for showing that you care about this country enough to listen to discussion about what is going on. Thank you all and God Bless.