Get to know candidates for President of US

In the middle of a hot dry summer in Georgia, there is little doubt that the nominee for the Democrat party for President of the United States of America will be the current president. Many pundits have already pronounced President Obama as the anointed winner in his second run to be the nominee of his party. Opinions will vary as to whether his nomination will mean an automatic second term in the White House.

On the Republican side of the aisle, the field of candidates for the nomination continues to grow. It is hard to predict how many people will ultimately be running to carry the banner for the Republican Party from the primaries into the General Election. National columnists and bloggers are abuzz with rumors of who is in and who is out in regard to being the final winner for the nomination to seek the highest office in the world. The question I am hearing most often these days is the prediction of who among the current field of candidates will be the first to drop out. There seems to be a tie in trying to determine if the first drop out would be Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. Neither of these men has yet to gain the momentum that was been expected by their supporters. Almost every conservative column writer is showing Mitt Romney as the front runner in money support as well as poll results. There is a hedge on this prediction, however, by some writers when the as-yet unannounced candidacy of the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is added to the field of candidates. Fellow Georgian, Herman Cain, has a way of bringing great energy to a crowd and has enjoyed fair success in his fund raising attempts. Former Utah Governor, Ambassador Jon Huntsman, has been able to stir some waves after jumping into the fray. Minnesota Representative, Michele Bachmann, has been able to rise near the top in some of the daily tracking polls. There is some speculation as to whether Sarah Palin, former vice presidential candidate with Senator John McCain, will enter the race. There is Ron Paul who appeals to a certain segment of the population, but has yet to turn that appeal into a prediction of victory for him. Tim Pawlenty shows promise but is struggling to have his message heard. Thaddeus McCotter is also often mentioned as having entered last, and might be the first to drop out. Naming each of these candidates should not be seen as an endorsement or prediction concerning any of them. I have listed them for information only. We continue to hear that others will be joining the race.

With all that is going on in Washington over the increase in the debt ceiling, and other national and international upheavals, some would say it is too early to begin following presidential candidates. I would argue however, that the time is now that we need to become aware of the positions of each candidate in order to make an informed decision when the time comes for voting.

Admittedly, it is early, but it is never too early to begin comparing the values, experience (in and out of government service), platforms and promises of each of the people who would want our vote to become the next President of the United States. With the availability of information via the Internet and with social media on the upswing all the candidates attempt to make known their beliefs and policy convictions in order for everyone who agrees with them to jump on their wagon as they move toward the primary vote next year.

There is no excuse for any person to say they are not informed about candidates. There should be no viable excuse to stay home on Election Day, especially to say that you don’t know the people running for President of the United States of America.

Ray Newman

Just Common Sense

Each year I take time during the days leading up to the Fourth of July to read the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence. This year, I added to the reading marathon the pamphlet penned by Thomas Paine, January 9, 1776, titled “Common Sense.” In this long essay, Paine takes great strides to explain the common sense thinking of the day that led up to the Declaration of Independence from the monarchial system of government in England, under which the colonies were forced to struggle. One is not long into the reading of Paine’s masterpiece of government grievances before it is known that there is no love lost between Paine and King George III, the King of England.

Paine explains in the document. “We have it in our power to begin the world anew…America shall make a stand, not for herself alone, but for the world.” It was obviously true that the men who led the rebellion against the tyranny of the monarchy in the “Mother country” were motivated by the desire to be free from government intrusion into their personal lives because of the belief that they had God-given rights they would not yield. Paine was not shy to express his beliefs and to outline what he understood was necessary to throw off the yoke of bondage that was being tightened around the necks of the people in the colonies. One only has to read the quoted sentences below to hear the pathos and passion in the voice and pleading of Paine as he argued for a free society of people that would determine its own destiny.

Paine said: “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.”

With the publishing of “Common Sense,” Thomas Paine spoke to the people of the colonies and at the same time served notice on King George III that the free people of the new world intended to remain free and were willing to, if necessary, seal that freedom with their life blood. In the months that followed the publishing of Paine’s “Common Sense” pamphlet, there would be many meetings among the leaders of the new developing country, with edicts from King George III to attempt to bring the rebels into line and further control this attempt to break away from England, to no avail.

Monday, we celebrate our independence from England with our 235th celebration of the Declaration of Independence. As we place our government system alongside other systems we are still young, and we are still in the throes of determining all that the founding fathers had in mind for our nation. When the founding fathers expressed their collective belief that among certain of our rights is the right to life, they gave credibility to the universal right to life. In the listing of what they believed to be Creator-given rights; life was first, then liberty, followed by the pursuit of happiness. Our society has in the last couple of decades determined to turn that list upside down putting happiness first. Not only have we seen that determined shift in thinking, but somehow the idea has been sold that government must insure the happiness of the people. We have lost the concept of the pursuit of happiness and replaced it with government guaranteed happiness, which is not possible unless we are willing to loose all our freedoms. We too often see the argument for the taking of life in the womb as assuring the happiness of the one making the decision to take the life of the innocent unborn person. Not just in the area of life, but also in every aspect of our life from the cradle to the grave, we have been sold the idea that government has all the answers to every dilemma of life. The time is now that we should embrace the truth expressed by Thomas Paine when he said. “Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one…”

Ray Newman

How We Make Wrong Choices

In these early days of spring there is a continuing unrest spreading across the nation. My email box is being filled each day with information coming out of Washington and elsewhere about the condition of our country. Last week, there seemed to be as many people looking for a government shut down as there were people on the other side wringing their hands, wanting the government to stay open. Every person and organization that sends information has an opinion about what needs to be done to fix the latest crisis we are facing. There is almost a wrestle mania attitude running through some people’s thoughts as they try to make sense out of what makes no sense to many people. There are those who insist that their opinion is the only one that will work and for any who do not line up in agreement with them they are being assigned a place in the nether world.

 A friend offered this solution: “Open the top of the Capitol and pour them all out and start over.” While I understand that feeling, it sounds as if that would lead to anarchy with no leader or rule and would, indeed, create more problems than could ever be solved. The argument is being made by many people from whom I hear that the current crop of elected leaders is failing in their attempts to bring solutions and we would be better off starting over. While I understand the temptation the solution seems to have, the question arises as to who would then replace those who are in office now. Are we sure that the next crop of leaders will do any better than the ones we currently have? Many would respond by saying they could not be any worse. That is an unknown. We always take a risk anytime we come to the place of holding an election. There is always the passion and emotion of what the hot button might be in the country and the voters run mostly on passion and emotion in selecting candidates and nominees.

The solution I offer takes time and effort on the part of the voters. It is not too early to begin to think about candidates for the next election cycle. We know that President Obama has already kicked off his campaign (some say he never stopped campaigning) for his 2012 Presidential run. On the Republican side, dozens of candidates seem to be lining up to take a run at the nomination. There will be, as always, a long list of independent candidates for the office of President of the United States of America. As I speak before various groups across our state, the questions have already started as to who I think the nominee will be for the Republican Party. Upon being invited recently to speak to a group of concerned and active citizens in South Georgia, the person issuing the invitation said, “We want you to be prepared to tell us who you think is the front runner for the Presidential Election of 2012.” It is now time that we as citizens need to be informing ourselves on the issues and where the candidates stand on those issues. I know that unemployment is high and many are seeking jobs with little time to be thinking about the next election. I know the international situations continue to mound larger and take time to consider, which again leaves little time to be thinking about the next election. With a long list of excuses, we could all act as if we have no time to become informed on the issues and positions of possible candidates. I would suggest that we are in this situation today because we have waited too late and known too little about the candidates we have elected to office. As a political activist and pundit, I find that it is a full time job to keep up with what is taking place at all levels of government. I also find information is more easily available than ever. I contend that there is no excuse for not knowing the candidates and their positions on all the issues. As citizens, we must become informed and then be willing to tell others what we know about the candidates and their positions. We cannot afford to continue to make wrong choices.

Ray Newman:  All Rights Reserved

America Is Not A Pure Democracy

Other countries are facing civil war. There are riots, mobs, overthrowing of governments, and regime changes taking place in almost all of the nations of the Middle East. Recently, mobs have been gathering in the United Kingdom, and in some of the states in our country calling for change or lack thereof to certain laws. Our nation, upon being founded, made a decision to become a representative democratic republic. The establishment of law and following the rule of law is to be paramount in a representative democratic republic. There are some people (even politicians), who have the mistaken idea that we are a pure democracy in America. That is not true. A pure democracy is a government of the masses. In a pure democracy, every decision that is to be made in government is made by a vote or some other expression by the masses. Being a representative form of government, the people (thus the phrase, “We the people), elect at determined election times the people who will represent their wishes and values and authorize them to make laws and set regulations that will govern.

 As there is a time when those who are elected to represent the people no longer represent the wishes of the people, at the next scheduled election other people are then elected that will promise to represent the wishes of the people. It sounds complex and it is. It might have a desire to be simple, but when the people elected misunderstand their role and begin to set and pass laws that do not represent the wishes of the people, there is a push back on the elected representatives. There were some of our nation’s founders who wanted to see a pure federalist form of government. That form of government would not have allowed for state or local governments. The entire law making assignment would have been granted to the federal government.

We have seen a twist on this concept of representative republic over time when the elected representatives have not wanted to follow through with their assignment and have tossed the ball, as it were, back to the people for a vote on an issue and called that a true democracy. We have seen this done many times in recent decades in California when the people there are called upon to vote on almost everything that is to be made into law. That seems to be a great way for the elected representatives to place the blame on the people in case a bad law is approved by the people. We are seeing this lived out in our state with the concept of having local votes on the Sunday sales of alcohol in package stores. Many of the same elected officials who expect to be applauded for that attitude recoil at the idea that any should ask them to break their constitutional assignment in passing laws that raise taxes on the people not allowing the people to vote on the issue.

An uninformed public continues to chant that the people must decide. The people have every opportunity to decide at the ballot box when they elect the people who will represent them until the next election. There is not enough money or time to hold all the elections that would be necessary should we somehow come to a place of a pure democracy that would require the people to make all the decisions concerning every law. During the last several election cycles there has been so much voter apathy one could see where we might be at a place that some people would insist on the people deciding, because they know that then only a very small percentage of the registered voters would really care enough to become informed on the issues and even a smaller number would care enough to invest the necessary time to go to the polls and vote on election day.

In a real representative democratic republic, the people would be informed on the candidates they are electing and hold those elected to the values on which they ran and were placed in office.

Call me naïve but I am still waiting for the elected politicians to come to the point to understand they are accountable to the special interest group known as “citizens” who elected them to office. We are at the point in our history where we must insist on a real representative democratic republic form of government, not a pure democracy and certainly never a mobocracy.

Ray Newman:  All Rights Reserved

Questions about "End Time!"

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the situation in Libya from his office in Washington, DC., March 20, 2011. “The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppressions and self-government for their people. It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Qadhafi to attack his own people and the violence must stop.” His statement continued: “The President is the commander-in-chief, but the Administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is, better explain what America’s role is in achieving that mission, and make clear how it will be accomplished. Before any further military commitments are made, the Administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.”

Last Saturday from Rio de Janerio, President Obama authorized military action to assist in the enforcement of the United Nation’s resolution creating a no-fly zone over the nation of Libya. For several weeks, a civil war has been raging in that nation in North Africa. Moammar Gadhafi, the dictator in Libya, has been bombing his own people in order to push back the rebellion against his dictatorship in Libya. Within minutes of the order by President Obama, missiles were fired into targets inside Libya. President Obama has pledged there will be no US troops on the ground in Libya.

Our country is still engaged on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we are joining with other nations in fighting in a civil war in Libya.  All the time this is going on in other countries and President Obama is out of the country we have no budget by which to operate our government.  There is a continuing budget resolution, but we do not have a budget while our deficit and national debt continues to spiral out of control. Media sources report we have to borrow $5 billion a day to continue at the current spending limit in our country. Unemployment remains over 9% with many people having been out of work for two or three years without a livable income for their families. Business failures, personal bankruptcies, and home foreclosures continue daily in our country. Many economic experts believe we are headed toward a European style value added tax that will further cripple the majority of the working people in our country who are already taxed to the maximum of their ability to pay.

Added to the misery chronicled above are the natural disasters no one can predict or control. The latest major disaster occurred in Japan with the 9.0 earthquake and the resultant tsunami. The crisis concerning the meltdown inside the nuclear plants in Japan continues to make headlines daily.  Government officials in Japan have said their nation is facing the greatest challenge since World War II. While putting their best positive spin on the crisis, the officials inside Japan are calling the people to rally to rebuild their nation as they have in the past.

Each day brings another negative report about the global economy. The unrest in the Middle East and Northern Africa continues to spread almost daily into other countries.  For me, the interesting discussions that are following these national and international concerns are questions about “end times” and prophecy.

 During the last several weeks, I have received more questions about Bible prophecy and my opinion about what the Bible has to say about these events that are now piling up all around the world. Some people who would normally never give an impression that they cared knowing about the Bible are suddenly asking questions about Armageddon. Armageddon is the biblical account of the major war that is predicted during the end of the age. There are various opinions and interpretations about the events of the end time. I find it intriguing that people are beginning to want to have answers to questions related to the biblical view of the end of the age. It is interesting to see the response of people who otherwise seem as if they could not care any less to know anything about biblical prophecy to suddenly be concerned about the signs of the end of time.  It finally seems events in the world are getting the attention of people causing them to seek answers to questions that have eternal significance rather than just caring about the immediate time.

Ray Newman:  All Rights Reserved

Big Government vs Personal Responsibility

 Pseudo intellectuals enjoy creating presuppositions that exist only in their minds and then develop other smaller presuppositions that they connect to make a point. Once, when hearing a dean from a major university speaking on a subject that was barely known by any who sat in the audience, two people, as they left the lecture said; “Wasn’t he confusing on a higher level.”  To satisfy some of my readers, what I just said was, some people are so sure they are intellectual giants that when they have no real point to make on any given subject, the quicker they can confuse the subject by injecting big words, the surer they are that those hearing them will think they are smart.  One could say that what is happening with this exercise in intellectual gymnastics is people are connecting dots that have been imagined and thus when they finish drawing their picture it means nothing. We are currently thrust into an international debate about how much government is too much. The big government crowd has always lobbied for more and larger government control over every area of an individual’s life. The conservative side of the debate has always injected the concept of personal responsibility and limited government to allow for the greater amount of personal freedom, thereby leaving the risk for success or failure with the individual. The bigger government folks want to be sure that every person is guaranteed success. That is success as the bigger government defines it. The bigger government people continue to harp on the fact that the government will take care of a person from the cradle (if they can manage to be born) until the grave. There has also been a suggestion; there comes a time in every person’s life when they are no longer of value to the government so therefore, they are expendable. 

As the debate rages on, we have come to a point to understand this as being on the level of personal worth and what value can be assigned to a person’s life. The value of a person’s life is defined by the government as the value of a person to the government, not to the culture, or familial environment. When the presupposition is that a person’s value is to be determined by the government, the obvious answer is the person of no value to the government is expendable.

The personal responsibility crowd would argue for the intrinsic value of personhood from the point of conception. The value that is placed upon the embryo in the lab or in the womb would be seen as equal. Allowing for the individual freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we could conclude that granted those freedoms, each person is responsible to develop in a free society to achieve the level of success to which they would aspire. Every time the government gets involved in making decisions about the level of success allowable to individuals, they always restrict rather than release the person to achieve or fail on their own. The cries for freedom we have been hearing from the crowds in the streets of the Middle East call for personal achievement and freedom, not government control. They are crying out for less government, not more government.  The reforms that follow a change in government for those in the Middle East would be to allow for movement upward in personal goals and achievement.

On a more practical and personal level, we are seeing across our nation the states, cities, and counties struggling with the fact that government has grown too large and now it is time to pay for bigger government. As the money is no longer available to the government to pay for the grants, entitlements, and doles, cuts are required to balance the budget to the horror of some who have felt government would always provide. The solution offered by the bigger government folks is to raise taxes on the populace. The solution presented by the personal responsibility crowd is government must learn to live within its means. What we are seeing in Wisconsin and other states is the push back upon the government who promised to always supply every want and wish of the people and it can no longer carry out that promise. The answer to this dilemma is to be found in the personal responsibility of the people and not bigger government with promises to give us everything we think we need.

Ray Newman February 2011, All Rights Reserved

The struggle between producers and confiscators

The fight for liberty and freedom continues and must ever be on the minds of those of us who wish to remain free. Our founders were certain that we have the rights given to us from our Creator for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life begins at conception and deserves the opportunity to know the full assurance of life in order to one day enjoy liberty and be free to pursue happiness.

The struggle for freedom and liberty has never been between the haves and the have-nots in societies. The struggle for freedom when it has been fought has always been between the producers and the confiscators. The majority of the people of a culture are producers in order to provide for themselves and their families. As governments have been organized there is power inherent in their structure. That structure requires the producers to provide for those in power and for others the government believes should receive.

It has been my observation that people have power because it is given to them. Government has power because the people grant it. It is when the government demands power and finds ways of conscripting the power for itself, that we begin to see our liberties and freedoms diminish. When the producing class becomes smaller and the demands for what they provide grow greater is when we begin to see the agitation of the people in the culture. Again, this is not a struggle between the haves and have-nots, but a struggle between the providers and the confiscators. Government is necessary, but only in a limited sense. When we are required to depend upon government for every aspect of life is when we have lost most, if not all of our liberties and freedoms.

There are people who argue that we have gone too far down the road to make a change in our government structure. We have generations of citizens who are certain that the government must guarantee them all the necessities and wants they have in life. What seems to have been missed in all of the government promises and doles to so many is that someone somewhere has to be a producer and provide what is then being redistributed to others. We have become so callused that we continue to demand more from our government than it can ever possibly provide and we rebel at the thought of cutting government programs even though we know they cannot be sustained over several generations.

Every time there is a new government spending program there can be certainty that it will require taking from one group in order to give to another group in society. We are at the point where we now are taking from future generations in order to placate the current dole receivers. As this pattern continues, it will require a stronger and more aggressive government in order to exact larger shares from the producers and providers in life. As this pattern plays out, government becomes stronger and the people weaker with fewer freedoms. With fewer freedoms there is an almost certainty that happiness will no longer be pursued and conflict arises between citizens.

We have a ruling elite class that believes they know better how to spend our money than we do. They require from the citizens a high price in order to sustain their lifestyle and to be able to give more to the non producers in life. With every new government spending program there is a promise of money to some group, but in order to fund the program there are cuts from other programs.  The government that has already confiscated money to put into a government program then takes the money from that program in order to fund another government give-away. This type of thinking can only come from those who either do not understand what they are doing, or they are following a well planned path to bankrupt this nation in order to bring down the country into a dependent class. The dependent class would no longer be producers, but would be on the receiving end of what others have taken from them in order to provide for non producers. This path will lead into anarchy and destroy our free nation.

Ray Newman, February, All Rights Reserved