Since the election in November, there has been a myriad of proposals and statements from a whole host of liberal groups and politicians that if enacted will change our way of life in the United States. The problem being that many of the proposals bear very little resemblance to what the Constitution states is the role of government. The framers of the Constitution made it very clear that the role of the federal government is to be a limited one. They did not envision that the politicians of today would be creating a government that would have a hand in controlling virtually every facet of our lives. 

The arguments for the nanny style government range from, “The framers couldn’t understand what our world is like today, so certain aspects of the Constitution are not relevant any longer”; to “The government should provide everything for us, because their job is to protect and provide for us”. The founders of our great nation realized that they were fallible men and could not possibly realize all of the trials that would face us as a nation in the future. That is precisely why they included a process to amend the Constitution to account for the changing times. 

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God and as such is not susceptible to being rewritten. Some professing Christians say that portions of the Bible are not relevant today, because our world is a much different place than it was during the time of Jesus. These Christians want to pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible, but completely ignore the parts that seem to hard for them to live in their everyday lives. The principles taught in the Bible are just as applicable in today’s world as it was 2000 years ago.

The logic of those who want to “cherry pick” what is applicable from the Bible is the same logic of those who want to reshape our country into something vastly different from what was intended. Once you start down the road of silencing your critics on the radio, or nationalizing our nation’s health care system, or our banking system, it becomes even more difficult to turn the process around. How do we decide which parts of the Constitution are no longer applicable today? Do we say that freedom of speech is not applicable on talk radio but is fine in the newspapers? At what point do we say that critical speech in the newspapers is no longer legal? The same holds true for the Bible, if the biblical prohibition of adultery is not applicable in our times, then what about stealing? Or murder? Of course a cursory look at the headlines will reveal that many politicians are knee-deep in scandal and corruption, which line their pockets with someone else’s money. 

Over the past week, there has been a constant parade of political “experts” through the news networks to propose their recommendations to the Republican Party to renew the party. The suggestions have all had a familiar ring to them. The “intellectual” opinion is that the Republicans need to jettison their conservative values and ideals. They believe that conservatism is the reason behind McCain’s defeat and the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006. They completely disregard any of the other competing forces weighing on the minds of the voters in the past 2 elections.

It will come as no surprise, but I do not agree with the self-proclaimed experts. I believe that the major problem within the Republican Party is not that they are too conservative, but rather that they have neglected their responsibility in educating the voters on what they believe. Of course, then they have to actually govern as conservatives.

It is not enough to say that as a political party we believe in smaller government. The average voter does not care what that we are for a smaller government unless we explain what a smaller government means and why we believe it is the right choice. Some of my Christian friends have asked how I could be a conservative and a Christian at the same time. They believe that my conservative position on the role of government is in contradiction to Biblical teaching to take care of the poor. I believe that as a Christian we should take care of the poor and downtrodden, but I do not believe that it is the government’s responsibility. I believe that the community at large is better at dealing with those in their own communities. Local churches give more food and aid to the homeless and the poor in their communities than the government could ever dream of helping. The sheer size of the bureaucracy of government makes it inefficient in helping the poor. Jesus did teach that we should help the poor, but I have never read in my Bible that as long as we pay our taxes than our responsibility to the poor is done.

We cannot simply say that we are pro-life and expect that the voters will simply accept it and be with us. The age-old axiom, “you are preaching to the choir” holds a lot of truth in this case. Claiming to be the Pro-life party will bring pro-life voters to you, but it does nothing to educate those who may not have a strong position either way. We need to explain why we are pro-life. We need to explain that the procedure known as partial-birth abortion is a horrific and completely unnecessary procedure. I do not know of any medical condition that would require a pre-term baby to be vaginally delivered to the point of leaving the baby partially in the birth canal, and then piercing the live baby’s skull to suck the infant’s brain out to kill the baby. If an expecting mother is in such a bad physical state that she will not survive a normal delivery, how is she protected by inducing labor only to partially deliver the baby as normal before killing it? We need to explain why we are against government funding for abortion and the readily available abortion on demand for any reason. We do not believe inconvenience is a feasible reason for ending a human life.

Campaigning on lower taxes is great, but it needs to be taken to the next level. We need to explain why we believe lower taxes for everyone is the best option for our economy and for our government. We need to educate the American public about taxes. We need to change the debate from a class envy debate to a debate over taxes themselves. Obama was elected claiming that 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut, but the problem is that roughly 40% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. We need to educate the public about who actually pays taxes and how much they do pay. The top 1% of income earners pays roughly 40% of taxes. We need stop sitting back and letting the Democrats spin a tax cut for all tax payers into an unfair tax cut for the rich. We need to educate the public why an across the board 2% rate cute for someone making $1 million is still a 2% rate cut. It is the same 2% cut that someone making $40,000.

The general election in November is forecasted to be a landslide victory for the Democrats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. Some predictions show the Democrats with a 70-seat majority in the House and a 12-seat majority in the Senate. The significance of those types of majorities in both chambers is that the Republicans would be powerless to stop any part of the ultra liberal agenda that Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are likely to push upon the American public. The argument will be that the American people voted for change in Washington and that change is clearly very liberal. 

The Democratic Party has good reason to be optimistic about their impending victories in November. It started in March with the Republican loss of former Speaker Hastert’s seat in Illinois, and continued with another Republican loss in Louisiana in early May. Both of these seats were Republican strongholds for several decades. Nancy Pelosi commented that it is a clear indication that the American people want the change that the Democratic Party is promising. 

Of all election years, this one was primed for the congressional Republicans to take advantage of the historic negative approval ratings of the Democratic Party controlled Congress. According to a Gallup poll, a mere 18% of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. That number matches a poll from 1992 when that Democratic Party controlled Congress had similar poor marks. That Congress went on to lose control of both Houses in 1994. The Republicans by all accounts should be heading for huge victories in November, but instead they appear to be determined to run head on into a massive defeat.

The Democrats, to their credit, are energized and focused on their election theme of change and hope. The Republicans seem to be still struggling to find a voice, any voice. What I find amazing about the contest in Louisiana in early May was that the Democratic candidate campaigned on his conservative stance on abortion and other social issues. Yet the Republican Party is running away from their conservative positions. They are determined to run as liberals in Republicans clothes. How do they expect to win any election by running away from their conservative base? They simply will not win if their conservative base is not energized behind them. The Democrats won control of both Houses in 2006 in large part to southern Democrats campaigning as conservatives, but yet the Republican leadership appears to believe that conservatism is dead. 

This election season is shaping up to be a contest between a political “moderate” and a liberal. I realize that the Democrats are far from deciding their nominee, but there really isn’t any substantive difference on policy between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Senator McCain, the unofficial Republican nominee, is the moderate in the race.

John McCain has built his political career around creating ulcers within the digestive tracts throughout the conservative ranks. He has enjoyed glowing media coverage, which has helped to solidify his “maverick” status in Washington. The important question of this election for Republicans is whether or not conservatives will show up to vote for McCain. Through all of the media hype about conservatives failing to line up behind him, I have come to realize that there is some misconceptions about what conservative believe and what we stand for.

I would like to give a brief overview of what I believe a conservative believes. I am a Christian, husband, father, American, conservative, and lastly a Republican. Those titles help define my beliefs. As a Christian I believe in the sanctity of innocent human life. Therefore, I am pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception and that life should be protected. I believe that little baby is a human life. If you ask any woman who is happily pregnant, she will not refer to the life growing inside of her as a fetus. To her it is her child, a baby. For me, my stand on abortion comes more from my Christian faith, and less so from my conservative viewpoint.

As a conservative, I believe that the government takes way too much money from our wallets in taxes. I don’t fall into the class envy trap that so many politicians are pushing these days. The political rhetoric on taxes has become a rich versus the rest of us rant. The “evil” rich are making too much money and not paying enough in taxes. What percentage of their income should the “evil” rich pay in taxes? Is 30% enough? What about 50%? Why not return to the days of more than 70%? Sadly many in our country would rather complain that the rich are too rich, than to actually sit down and figure out how they themselves might be able to make a better life for themselves. The class envy crowd love to point out that billionaire Warren Buffet has complained that his secretary, who makes $60,000 a year, pays more in income taxes than he does. I can’t help but ask 2 questions. Why doesn’t Mr. Buffet pay his secretary more so that she may be able find the tax loopholes that he exploits? If he truly believes that he should pay more in taxes, then why doesn’t he write a check to the Treasury Department? They will be more than happy to accept his money.

I also believe that the government has grown beyond a reasonable size. It has become the mentality of the general population that the government should take care of us from cradle to grave. This may not be a very popular idea right now, but the government should not be in the business of forgiving mortgages. The housing crisis, while painful, is completely necessary to correct a market that was completely out of control. If the politicians follow through on freezing foreclosures and forgiving mortgages, the housing market will take much longer to get back on its feet. It may make for great headlines, but is terrible economic policy. Once they start meddling with mortgages of those who are in danger of foreclosure, how long before they come and forgive my debt? Why should I be punished for proper financial planning?

I believe that the government has no role in meting out healthcare, or any of the other myriads of programs and services that the politicians propose. Senator Clinton is the godmother of universal healthcare but yet her campaign deemed it necessary to not pay the healthcare premiums for her campaign staff. Is this part of the Clinton healthcare plan? I thought “free” healthcare was a human right. I simply cannot understand how any thinking individual could want the federal government to take over our healthcare. They spend billions each year on our children’s education, but yet in most major cities less than half of those children graduate from high school. The same government who ran the Katrina response is going to run our healthcare system. How am I supposed to believe that they will be more efficient and provide higher quality care than the private sector?

I believe in a strong military that is ready to take on any and all threats, but also to see those conflicts through to the end. If we pack up and leave before there is a lasting peace in Iraq, it will just be a few short years before we find ourselves back over there again. Does anyone remember the debate leading up to the initial invasion for Desert Storm? Many opponents claimed that if the elder Bush had finished the job in the early 90’s, that we wouldn’t be in this mess. Isn’t amazing how those same people are now demanding that we leave Iraq before the peace has been achieved?

I have been called a Nazi, Hitler, fascist, moron, child polluter, member of the Reich wing, neocon, and numerous other names for espousing my beliefs. As if I will suddenly change my view on an issue because I was called a name. I believe that conservatives and liberals share some of the same objectives when it comes to caring for the poor and needy. Both groups agree that they need help, but where we differ is the means of providing that help. Conservatives believe that the private sector is the best way to meet their needs. Liberals generally believe that the government is the sole source to help. 

The National Journal recently released their ratings of members of Congress. They rated Senator Clinton as the 16^th most liberal senator, while Senator Obama was rated as the most liberal senator in the United States Senate. The trends show that over the past 3 years, from his first year in the senate until 2007 when he was trying to win the support of the Democratic base support, his voting record shifted dramatically to the left. His rating went from a middle of the road 16^th, to number one in 3 short years. Senator Clinton on the other hand started out as a middle of the road liberal and rose to number 8 in the ratings in 2003 and then dropped back in the pack again. It appears that Senator Clinton has been positioning herself as more of a moderate to win broader appeal for a general election, while Senator Obama has positioned himself as a staunch liberal to win the primary election. The question to be posed is this, if the candidates will sell their voting souls for a political victory, what will they do once they are elected? 

How do we really know where they stand on any issue? If we can’t look at their voting records as an indication of what they believe, then what can we look into to educate ourselves? Should we listen to what they say on the political trail? As politicians, they will say anything in order to get elected. After all, former President Clinton promised to cut taxes in his first term and to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. The first President Bush made his infamous promise during the 1988 campaign, “Read my lips, no new taxes”. Politicians make careers out of promising everything to everybody, and then blaming the opposition for blocking their fruition of their promises. 

The talented politicians are able to remain popular even after they fail to live up to a large percentage of their promises. President Clinton still remains very popular, even though he did not follow through on many of his promises. His supporters point to the “evil” Newt Gingrich for Clinton’s failings. President Reagan is revered by the conservative base of the Republican party, but he did sign an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants and was unable to control the congressional spending. Clinton is loved, in part, because of his never-ending fight with Gingrich and the Republicans. Reagan is loved because of his strong support for the military and his cutting of the tax rate from over 75% down to 28%.