Pure Democracy?

Was this nation set up to be a pure democracy? Did the Founders ever have such a notion? You may be surprised, as I was, at the answer. In the February 29/March 1, 2012 issue of the Social Conservative Review, Rob Schwarzwalder, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council, made a compelling argument that it was not and our survival as a nation depends on it never being a “pure” democracy; that pure democracy must lead to anarchy and ultimately to despotism. “The Founders of our country had what historian Ellis Sandoz has called “a paradoxical sense of the dignity and frailty of every human being.” They knew that man was unique in all creation: That God had made man in His image, had created him only “a little lower than the angels,” and had “numbered the very hairs of his head” (Gen. 1:26-27, Psalm 8:4-5, Luke 12:7). They also knew that man was a fallen being, scarred by sin, whose heart was “deceitful and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9). It was this understanding that tempered their confidence in the capacity of man to govern himself. They did not believe in pure democracy, the direct and immediate approval of the 50 percent-plus-one. Consider John Adams’ wise counsel in his 1763 work, “An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power:” “Democracy will soon degenerate into anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure.” The Founders believed that morally bankrupt leadership would exploit human selfishness such that coarseness, or license, would become entrenched in law. This would breed anarchy – a breakdown of civil order as people pursued, under sanction of law, ill-behavior – and this breakdown would eventually lead to dictatorship as people began to long for order and security. Consider the words of former New York Gov. David Paterson, who was sworn-in after his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, admitted to having had an extensive relationship with a prostitute. When confronted, Gov. Paterson acknowledged having had several extra-marital affairs, and offered this defense of his actions at a news conference on March 18, 2008: “I think (I) have a marriage like many Americans, maybe even like many of you. Elected officials are really just reflections of the people we represent.” That’s a chilling proposition – especially since there is a ring of truth in it. “A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens,” said Ronald Reagan in a 1984 speech. “The more decent the citizens, the more decent the state.” Are we each sustaining and enhancing the personal character without which our lives, our families, our economy, and our country will be lost? There can be few more challenging questions for us as persons or as citizens.” Was this nation set up to be a pure democracy? Did the Founders ever have such a notion? You may be surprised, as I was, at the answer. In the February 29/March 1, 2012 issue of the Social Conservative Review, Rob Schwarzwalder, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council, made a compelling argument that it was not and our survival as a nation depends on it never being a “pure” democracy; that pure democracy must lead to anarchy and ultimately to despotism. “The Founders of our country had what historian Ellis Sandoz has called “a paradoxical sense of the dignity and frailty of every human being.” They knew that man was unique in all creation: That God had made man in His image, had created him only “a little lower than the angels,” and had “numbered the very hairs of his head” (Gen. 1:26-27, Psalm 8:4-5, Luke 12:7). They also knew that man was a fallen being, scarred by sin, whose heart was “deceitful and desperately sick” (Jeremiah 17:9). It was this understanding that tempered their confidence in the capacity of man to govern himself. They did not believe in pure democracy, the direct and immediate approval of the 50 percent-plus-one. Consider John Adams’ wise counsel in his 1763 work, “An Essay on Man’s Lust for Power:” “Democracy will soon degenerate into anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure.” The Founders believed that morally bankrupt leadership would exploit human selfishness such that coarseness, or license, would become entrenched in law. This would breed anarchy – a breakdown of civil order as people pursued, under sanction of law, ill-behavior – and this breakdown would eventually lead to dictatorship as people began to long for order and security. Consider the words of former New York Gov. David Paterson, who was sworn-in after his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, admitted to having had an extensive relationship with a prostitute. When confronted, Gov. Paterson acknowledged having had several extra-marital affairs, and offered this defense of his actions at a news conference on March 18, 2008: “I think (I) have a marriage like many Americans, maybe even like many of you. Elected officials are really just reflections of the people we represent.” That’s a chilling proposition – especially since there is a ring of truth in it. “A state is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens,” said Ronald Reagan in a 1984 speech. “The more decent the citizens, the more decent the state.” Are we each sustaining and enhancing the personal character without which our lives, our families, our economy, and our country will be lost? There can be few more challenging questions for us as persons or as citizens.”

State of our Economy

There are those liberals who are publicly declaring that an economic recovery has arrived. The problem is that they are ignoring indicators that the U.S. economy is in absolutely terrible shape. The health of an eThere are those liberals who are publicly declaring that an economic recovery has arrived. The problem is that they are ignoring indicators that the U.S. economy is in absolutely terrible shape. The health of an economy should be evaluated by looking at numbers for things like jobs, housing, poverty and debt, not on how well the Stock Market is doing. Recent economic statistics report that unemployment is still slightly increasing, that the housing market continues to deteriorate, that poverty in America is growing and last but not least, our debt is worse than ever. If we were truly experiencing the kind of economic recovery after every other recession, we would see a pronounced improvement across the board in most of these economic statistics. But that simply is not the case. No matter how often the liberal media tell us that the U.S. economy is getting better, it isn’t going to change the pain that millions of American families are going through right now. Clearly, the present administration has failed. conomy should be evaluated by looking at numbers for things like jobs, housing, poverty and debt, not on how well the Stock Market is doing. Recent economic statistics report that unemployment is still slightly increasing, that the housing market continues to deteriorate, that poverty in America is growing and last but not least, our debt is worse than ever. If we were truly experiencing the kind of economic recovery after every other recession, we would see a pronounced improvement across the board in most of these economic statistics. But that simply is not the case. No matter how often the liberal media tell us that the U.S. economy is getting better, it isn’t going to change the pain that millions of American families are going through right now. Clearly, the present administration has failed.

Obamacare is a disease in itself!

In February of 2011, The Ways and Means Committee heard from CMS Administrator Donald Berwick, who is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid, as well as chief Medicare actuary Rick Foster.  The Office of the Actuary monitors Medicare’s finances and analyzes the impact of major health care policy changes.  Foster has repeatedly refuted claims that ObamaCare will reduce health care costs and issued a report last year warning of its potential negative effects on seniors.  According to Foster, 1.2 million seniors will be forced out of their Medicare Advantage plans next year alone because of the new health care law. Foster also testified that cuts in Medicare payments to providers are unsustainable and will threaten seniors’ access to high quality health care. Zoom ahead to today, with a price tag reaching $1.76 trillion over the next 10 years, President Obama promised Americans the benefits would outweigh the costs. The massive government takeover of health care, he insisted, would offer “affordable care” and “patient protection.” The economic risks, higher taxes, and government bureaucracy were worth it, Demorats said. They were wrong. Health-care costs are up and will continue to skyrocket for the foreseeable future. While millions will be added to the government rolls, millions more will also lose their current health-care coverage. Yet Liberals still insist on calling it the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” But as Factcheck.org declared, “The law falls short of making health care ‘affordable and available to every single American.'” In 2008, Barack Obama promised his health-care plan would bring down premiums “by $2,500 for the typical family.” But according to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost for a family’s insurance policy increased 9 percent just last year. By 2016, average family premiums will increase by $2,100 as a result of Obamacare, says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Higher costs, worse coverage, more national debt. How is this a good thing? In February of 2011, The Ways and Means Committee heard from CMS Administrator Donald Berwick, who is responsible for administering the Medicare and Medicaid, as well as chief Medicare actuary Rick Foster.  The Office of the Actuary monitors Medicare’s finances and analyzes the impact of major health care policy changes.  Foster has repeatedly refuted claims that ObamaCare will reduce health care costs and issued a report last year warning of its potential negative effects on seniors.  According to Foster, 1.2 million seniors will be forced out of their Medicare Advantage plans next year alone because of the new health care law. Foster also testified that cuts in Medicare payments to providers are unsustainable and will threaten seniors’ access to high quality health care. Zoom ahead to today, with a price tag reaching $1.76 trillion over the next 10 years, President Obama promised Americans the benefits would outweigh the costs. The massive government takeover of health care, he insisted, would offer “affordable care” and “patient protection.” The economic risks, higher taxes, and government bureaucracy were worth it, Demorats said. They were wrong. Health-care costs are up and will continue to skyrocket for the foreseeable future. While millions will be added to the government rolls, millions more will also lose their current health-care coverage. Yet Liberals still insist on calling it the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” But as Factcheck.org declared, “The law falls short of making health care ‘affordable and available to every single American.'” In 2008, Barack Obama promised his health-care plan would bring down premiums “by $2,500 for the typical family.” But according to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost for a family’s insurance policy increased 9 percent just last year. By 2016, average family premiums will increase by $2,100 as a result of Obamacare, says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Higher costs, worse coverage, more national debt. How is this a good thing?

King Barry?

Did America elect a King? The Democrats are famous for equating their presidents with European aristocracy. Remember the Kennedys and the Camelot reference? Well, this President seems to believe that he has been elected, “King.”

Not too many weeks ago, Mr. Obama threatened, “when Congress won’t act, Joe and I will.” The context was a debate about the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce expansion of the federal government’s purchase of bio-based products, promotion of regional rural job creation efforts, and the development of a rural health care workforce on a timeline and in a policy manner mandated by the Executive Branch. No checks or balances from Congress. Constitution be damned!

This President has more unconfirmed “Czars” creating and enforcing policy (if not attempts at law) than any president in our history. There is a clear circumvention of Congressional oversight in play and it is consistent with his words.

If one listens closely to the President, the redistribution of wealth based on his interpretation of “fairness” is a sufficient reason to increase taxes. He is now misquoting and mischaracterizing President Ronald Reagan’s tax program to justify the George Soros brand of socialism Mr. Obama would have us believe is his own, when the fact is that POTUS has never had an original thought. It would be funny except it isn’t funny. He is running for reelection on this premise.

If one follows his logic, the person who makes a minimum wage income will be happy just to know that those whose income is in the top category are paying more in tax to the government. We find that logic to be ludicrous and bordering on the “let them eat cake” mentality of another executed European monarch. As fiscal conservatives, we believe that the person earning minimum wages would be far more “happy” if jobs were created that would allow him/her to earn above that level. Soros socialists like Obama would rather placate their minions by keeping them ignorant and “happy” than to provide substantive change for the people they serve. How’s the hope and change working for you, so far?

Mr. Obama and his ilk believe that government can, should, and will create those jobs, but every single historical review of similar programs proves them to be miserable failures. It never has worked, it doesn’t work, and it never will work. It makes sense that Mr. Obama would buy into such clap-trap. He has never held a job or earned a paycheck that was not provided to him by some governmental agency. It is the only thing he knows…and it has worked well for him and his family. And he really doesn’t care beyond his own circle. Cronyism has never been worse in Washington….can you say Solyndra?

He championed the most outrageous and unpopular legislation in the history of this nation, Obamacare (yes, it has another name, but this is what the public has dubbed it and he hates it). When challenges to its outrageousness reached the Supreme Court, he had the audacity to attempt to intimidate the Court. His impudence is beyond the pale.

America doesn’t need a narcissistic egomaniac who thinks he is king. It needs to elect a President and a Congress that represents the values that made this nation great in the first place.