Monthly Archives: October 2010

Last Ditch Effort by Democrats to Steal Election

By Jerry McDaniel

As we go into the final days before the November 2 election, the Democrat Party is facing the most devastating defeat since John Adams and the Federalist Party in 1800. Democrats find themselves in an awkward and untenable position; they cannot tout their record or their policies in order to win the support of wavering voters. In desperation they are turning to two tactics that have been perfected during the last few election cycles, and that have proven effective in the past. The two most effective tools in the Democrat toolbox are voter suppression and outright voter fraud.

Many states, including Illinois, have illegally delayed the mailing of absentee ballots to soldiers serving overseas making it difficult for the ballots to be returned in time for the election deadline in November. Minutes ago, WLS radio in Chicago announced that a federal judge ruled today that an extension would not be allowed for the return of absentee military ballots. Since military ballots are expected to be overwhelmingly Republican, by disenfranchising as many members of the Military as possible, Democrats can improve their chances significantly.

Another tactic for suppressing the Republican vote is negative advertising. The objective of negative ads is not to change the mind of voters and win their votes. Most voters have already decided who they will vote for by this point in the election cycle, and negative ads will not change that. The value of negative advertising is to undermine the credibility of the opponent and discourage their supporters to the point that they will choose to stay home on election day. Negative ads do not win votes for the advertiser, it suppresses the turnout for the opponent. The closer to election day, the more outrageous and untruthful ads candidates can run as opponent’s opportunities to answer negative ads with the truth diminish and the clock winds down.

The infrastructure for massive voter fraud has already been laid with the overwhelming support of Democrats, Republicans, progressives and conservatives alike. Early voting, voting by mail, electronic voting machines, absentee ballots, and motor voter registration all provide fertile ground for voter fraud and will not go unused in this election. The opportunities afforded by the extended time between casting the vote and counting the vote to alter, lose, and invalidate ballots is simply too great a temptation for political hacks to resist when attempting to avoid a defeat of the magnitude likely for Democrats in this election.

In the Fox News interview of Michelle Malkin below, she documents some of the more egregious acts of voter fraud taking place in a number of states throughout the country.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

The MSM is doing their part to discourage Republican voters and suppress turnout with daily articles indicating the narrowing of margins in key races, particularly those with candidates supported by tea parties. It is critical that we ignore last minute polling data and discount stories of gloom published in the national popular press.  If we are to be successful on November 2 in taking back control of Congress and starting to turn back the tide of socialism, it is important that every patriot votes. Do not allow the Democrat Party to discourage you to the point that you do not vote.

Advertisements

Health Care: Repeal or Amend?

By Jerry McDaniel

The current national discussion of Obamacare gives us an easy to understand object lesson as to just how the progressives (American Socialists) have taken over our government in a hundred year bloodless revolution. According to an AP/GfK poll released Friday, only 37 percent of Americans want the “Affordable Care Act” that Obama signed into law last March repealed outright. This is an astonishing number because it means that 67 percent of Americans have bought into the premise that the federal government has the authority and should regulate, to some extent, America’s health care.

Vladimir Lenin considered universal health care to be the lynchpin of communism, not because he was concerned about the health of the people — he was responsible for the death of millions — but, because it provided the surest means of guaranteeing citizens’ dependence on the state. Food and medicine are two main essentials of life. When the government is able to control access to these essentials, citizens become dependent on, and thus slaves to the state.

Obamacare, when fully implemented, will make all citizens dependent on the state for their health care; meanwhile, eligibility for food stamps has been quitely expanded to the point where 42 million Americans are now receiving food assistance through the federal government. (States are only responsible for half the cost of administering food stamp programs. The food stamps themselves are funded entirely by the federal government).

Millions more Americans are partially or wholly dependent on the government for their livelihood, through direct grants, tax incentives or employment by companies that depend on government contracts for major parts of their revenue. Government largess is like a potent drug in the economic system of any nation, destroying individual initiative and liberty.

Once the population becomes addicted, it is difficult, if not impossible, to cleanse it from the system. We only have to look to the news from Europe today to see the turmoil caused by withdrawal from an addiction to socialism. To understand the dynamics of socialist addiction, consider the difficulty of reforming the popular social programs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicare and Welfare in our own country. Imagine what is likely to happen when it eventually becomes necessary to dismantle them completely.

It is the addictive characteristic of socialism that accounts for its steady progress in America since the late eighteen hundreds. Government controlled health care is the last step in the long journey to socialism started during the final years of the nineteenth century, and becoming firmly entrenched during the twentieth century. It has been the dream of American progressives since the inception of the progressive movement.

The idea of universal health care began in Germany in 1883 with a compulsory “sickness insurance” for workers. It soon spread to Austria, Hungary, Norway, England, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. By 1912 virtually all of Europe had some form of “state mandated” health care. This drain on European economies was one of the factors that allowed America to become the economic superpower of the world during the twentieth century.

The seeds of universal health care were planted in America during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt (1801-1809), through a proposal by the American Association of Labor Legislation (AALL). In 1917 AALL, backed by the AMA proposed a plan for compulsory health insurance; the advent of World War I caused it to be put on hold, however. The effort was revived in the mid-twenties by the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care.

Franklin Roosevelt toyed with the idea of including health insurance in the Social Security Bill of 1935, but it was not included for fear it would destroy the chances of the Social Security Bill being passed. The Roosevelt administration again attempted health care legislation with the National Health Act (Wagner Bill) of 1939. It was defeated by a conservative legislature elected in 1938 and World War II prevented its further progress.

Another attempt at national compulsory health insurance was attempted in 1943 with the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bills. In 1945, Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman again proposed a plan for national health care. It died in committee. In 1958 Congressman Aime Forand (D-RI) introduced a bill to cover hospital costs for senior citizens on Social Security. His bill did not make it through Congress but the proposal became a part of the Great Society legislation signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 as Medicare, parts A and B and Medicaid. We are all familiar with the ill-fated efforts of Bill and Hillary Clinton for universal health care after they took office in 1993.

Barack Obama has accomplished in a little over a year what no other progressive President has been able to accomplish in over a century of trying. We can expect that progressives will go to any length to salvage as much of the health care bill as possible. However, it must not be allowed to stand. It must be repealed in its entirety, not modified, reformed or altered to rid it of some of its more egregious parts. Like a cancer, it must be exorcised completely, otherwise it will Metastasize and eventually kill the patient.

The greatest danger to our individual liberty and our economic survival is the danger of a compromise on Obamacare, as the AP/GfK poll shows. Already we are hearing talk of amending the bill rather than repealing it, and that comes from the Republican side of the aisle. Twenty states have filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory insurance section of the bill. The theory is that if the courts determine that part of the bill to be unconstitutional the whole plan will unravel. However, that theory does not stand up in the light of history. In fact, that part of the bill could be nothing more than a “Trojan Horse” meant to establish the constitutionality of government regulation of health care.

If only compulsory insurance is found to be unconstitutional, then by inference, the balance of the bill will be considered constitutional by default, thereby inhibiting any further court challenges. The government will attempt to argue in court that the “commerce clause” empowers government to regulate health care and, by extension, compulsory health insurance mandated by the government. This is an extreme corruption of the commerce clause based on a 1942 Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn that “any activity that exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce” may be regulated by Congress. Because of the precedent established by this case there can be little confidence in how the courts will rule, and for that reason the bill must be repealed completely.

It should be obvious to any thinking person, literate in the English language, that the delivery of health care does not and cannot constitute interstate commerce. Health care delivery requires the face to face interaction between the provider and the patient. A physician in Chicago cannot diagnose and treat a person in Milwaukee, for example. Insurance does not fall under interstate commerce because it is not a product but a contract. The sanctity of a contract is emphasized in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution by forbidding states from passing any law “impairing the obligation of contracts”.

Obama will certainly veto any attempts by Congress to repeal the health care bill, and repeal may not be possible before 2013 when the next Congress is seated without Obama in the White House. However, the amount of effort put forth by the Republican Congress over the next two years for repeal is the best possible indicator of who should be reelected in 2012. Any Republican Congressman or Senator who fails to support and vote for repeal in the next Congress should not be sent back to Washington in 2013.

Click here for a thorough explanation of the “commerce clause”.

Time For Term Limits?

By Jerry McDaniel

For years, I have been against statutory or Constitution term limits for members of Congress, based on the belief that Citizens should have their choice of who will represent them in Congress and that they are entitled to the consequences of their choices. Another concern has been that the country would lose the services of good representatives when their time expired and less effective ones were likely to replace them.

The Founding Fathers wrestled with this question during the Philadelphia Convention without coming to a consensus. Those for term limits arguing that representatives should truly represent the interests of the people and that long-term service in Congress would cause them to lose touch with their constituents and become unfamiliar with the wishes and needs of the people they represented.

Those against term limits put forth many of the arguments concerning choice and the loss of effective representatives mentioned above. Unable to decide they finally “punted” the decision ahead for future generations to decide. These concerns are still valid, however, many things changed during the twentieth century to make the idea of term limits more agreeable. In fact during the twentieth century Congress departed so far from the Constitution and our founding principles that the only way to regain control of government may be through term limits.

One of the more important twentieth century changes was in political terminology. The most frequently used label for the American form of government during the early part of the nineteenth century was “republican”, referring to a government made up of representatives, chosen directly or indirectly, by the people and bound by a standard of law. The most frequently used label in the twentieth century was “democratic” referring to a government made up of representatives chosen directly by the people and bound only by the “will of the people”. The difference between a republican form of government and a democratic form of government appear small at first, but that difference is extremely important.

Another important change that occurred during the twentieth century was the makeup of the electorate. In the founding era, the voting franchise was limited to stakeholders with “skin in the game”, so to speak. Fearing an electorate made up of the uninformed and disinterested “masses” (democracy), the privilege of voting was restricted to land owners or equivalent, generally resulting in one vote per family. Today the franchise is universally available to all adults over eighteen years of age, due to a number of twentieth century Constitutional Amendments. There are no eligibility requirements that would limit voting to those most likely to understand the issues or be familiar with the candidates for whom they were voting. Ballots are printed in multiple languages so that it is not even necessary to speak English, a fundamental necessity for understanding the issues and the candidates’ positions on those issues.

Still another big factor of the twentieth century that led to the out of control, lawless government we have today was the rise in power of the two major political parties. The concept of citizen legislators who served for a few years and then returned to private life where they had to live with the laws they had created gave way to the career politician with many of them holding on to power for most of their adult lives. The result is, as the Founders predicted, a government made up of career politicians and bureaucrats far removed from the everyday problems, dealt with on a daily basis by the average citizen.

Few of today’s politicians know, understand or respect the Constitution. Law schools no longer teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach case law about it, substituting the past opinions of judges and courts for the clearly stated requirements of the Constitution. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. Therefore, it is necessary for politicians to ignore its demands in order to expand and hold onto power. Modern political parties exist wholly for the purpose of accumulating and wielding power. The lawyer/politicians who make up the bulk of our congressional membership think of themselves as advocates for the Party rather than advocates of the people.

On any controversial issue, the truth is always slanted to benefit the party, never to benefit the nation or the people, and certainly never as objective truth. The most important asset to any aspiring politician is party loyalty and the most valuable asset for party leadership is the ability to demand and enforce party discipline. The result is a government run exclusively by the Party leadership for the sole benefit of the Party and without the restraints of Constitutional limits. These Party characteristics are bipartisan. It makes little difference which Party is in power other than the severity of the damage done to the Constitution and the nation.

In order to return the federal government to one limited by the Constitution it will be necessary to break the power of the two political parties. One way of doing that would be to break up the perpetuity of congressional power through term limits.

During the debate concerning the length of service for Senators at the New York state Ratifying Convention, June 24, 1788, George Livingston made the following motion,

“That no person shall be eligible as a Senator for more than six years in any term of twelve years, and that it shall be in the power of the legislatures of the several states to recall their Senators, or either of them, and to elect others in their stead, to serve for the remainder of the time for which such Senator or Senators, so recalled, were appointed.” (This was before the Seventeenth Amendment and Senators were chosen by state legislatures.)

The following day, Melancton Smith in arguing on behalf of the motion said,

“…as the clause (in Article II) now stands, there is no doubt that the Senators will hold their office perpetually; and in this situation, they must of necessity lose their dependence and attachment to the people. It is certainly inconsistent with the established principles of republicanism, that the Senate should be a fixed and unchangeable body of men. There should be then some constitutional provision against this evil. A rotation I consider as the best possible mode of affecting a remedy…”

Livingston and Smith lost the debate in 1788, and their fears eventually came to fruition in both the House and the Senate. The time has now come for us to rethink the issue of term limits, as it may be the only tool the American people have for taking back their government from the Political Parties now controlling it.

God and November 2

By Jerry McDaniel

As the November elections approach, many of our most devout Christians are sitting on the sidelines rather than actively taking part, believing that religion and politics do not mix. There are a number of reasons why this view is so prevalent among Christian Churches and Christians in general. Most important, perhaps is the fact that the New Testament and the ministry of Jesus are apolitical. Another important reason why Churches and Christians are not as involved in politics as they perhaps should be is the politically correct, although historically incorrect, theory of the separation of church and state.

Jesus did not come to earth as a political leader. He did not come to establish an earthly kingdom. Neither was his purpose to lead a rebellion against the Roman Empire. Jesus came to proclaim the gospel of salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven. Politics, as we know it today, did not exist at the time of Christ. Political differences were settled with the sword, not at the ballot box.

At the time of Jesus’ birth the Angels proclaimed “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men!” (Luke 2:14) and so it was. While the Prince of Peace walked the earth, the earth was at peace. There were no wars anywhere among the civilized nations while Jesus was on earth. The Caesar Octavian had eliminated Mark Anthony and Cleopatra, his last important political rivals in 31 BC at the Battle of Actium. When Jesus was a teenager, Octavian, then known as Caesar Augustus died, and his adopted son Tiberius assumed power, heralding the end of the Empire as a republic and the beginning of the Roman Principate.

During the three years of Christ’s ministry, the entire known world was under Caesar Tiberius as the supreme ruler. During that time and for many years afterward, the citizens of Rome still enjoyed the relative liberty of the Roman Republic. Due to the variety of religions and cultures in the Roman Empire, there was a high degree of tolerance practiced toward the many religions and cults. The Jewish religion was one of those protected by Rome. Their protection was justified by Roman authorities by classifying synagogues as “colleges”. The wide spread tolerance of religion by the Roman government and the unity of the Roman Empire was instrumental in the spread of the gospel throughout the civilized world during the early church age. There was no reason for Christ or the early Churches to involve themselves in the politics of the day.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from these facts that Christians should not participate in politics. The New Testament covers a period of less than a hundred years, the ministry of Christ only three. For the reasons mentioned above the early Christians had little motivation to become involved in politics. For political guidance we have to go to the Old Testament which covers a period of about 3500 years from Creation to Malachi. The lessons we learn from the Old Testament in its totality, concerning governance, are that God macro manages the affairs of nations according to His will and, for the most part, leaves the micro managing of day to day politics up to the people and their leaders.

Moses records in Deuteronomy 17:14, 15; “When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose:”

The next five verses contain a brief “constitution” for the King to follow. He is not to enrich himself; he is not to have multiple wives; he is to consult the “constitution” daily, he is not to lead the people astray, and he is not to exalt himself above the people.

This prophecy came to pass some three hundred years later during the life of Samuel the Prophet and is recorded in I Samuel 8:4-7.

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”

In the following verses, Samuel warns the people of the consequences and dangers of having a King rule over them, but the people persisted and God, through the Prophet Samuel, gives Israel Saul as their first King. For the next thousand years or so Israel and later Judea existed as Kingdoms. Whenever they lapsed into idolatry or otherwise rebelled against God’s commandments God’s wrath was poured out in judgment. After warnings by the prophets and calls to repentance, the people suffered the consequences of their apostasies when they failed to heed the warnings. Eventually they lost their sovereignty and at the time of Christ, fifteen hundred years later, they were under the domination of the Roman Empire.

The danger we face today is not from socialism or Islam, but from the danger that God will withhold his blessings from us as a nation or that He will judge us by allowing us to be conquered from within through statism and socialism ending in tyranny. Why should He not? America was established under the providence of God and blessed above all other nations of history as an exceptional nation, envied and sought out by all the peoples of the world. Over the past hundred years we have departed from the principles on which we were founded.

Our leaders no longer make any attempt at following our Constitution; we pride ourselves on tolerating the sins of Baal, human sacrifice (abortion) and the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. We entertain ourselves daily on violence and lasciviousness through our entertainment media. We no longer demand morality and virtue from our elected officials. We not only tolerate corruption we even admire, to an extent, officials who traffic in corruption. The list is too long to mention them all, but some examples are, ex-governor Blagojevich, Mayor Richard Daley, Congressman Charles Rangel, and ex-President Bill Clinton, just to name a few.

Like Israel, we have turned aside from following the precepts of God and to idolatry, worshiping at the alter of environmentalism and the god Gaia, worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. We bow at the alter of statism, and seek the blessings of socialism rather than the blessings of God. If I may quote Thomas Jefferson out of context, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever..; The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a context.”

Jesus said, we are “the light of the world” and “the salt of the earth, if the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted”. When we consider these words of Jesus and apply them to today we might conclude that it is only the presence of God’s people in America that stays His hand of judgment. If the churches and Christians do not cry out against the sins of America, who will?  If we sit idly by and passively watch as our country progresses deeper into socialism and corruption without lifting our voice, we become accomplices to tyranny. These are the thoughts that should guide our decision on November 2, not whether or not our party can win an election.

Reprinted from Christian Patriots

HELP WANTED: Prophet

By Jerry McDaniel

America’s founding principles of life, liberty and property are rooted in the Judeo-Christian traditions found in the Holy Bible. I have long believed that our founding documents contain God’s plan for the American government.  No, this was not reveled to me by an angel in a vision and I am not a crazed religious fanatic. Neither am I claiming Divine inspiration for the Founding Documents. I came to this view after many years of study in American History, the Founding Documents and the Bible, particularly the Old Testament which reveals God’s dealings with the nations of the earth. 

We know from history that virtually all the Founders, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had a deep and abiding faith in the sovereignty of God over the affairs of man as expressed in the frequently used term, “Divine Providence.” Thomas Jefferson is the author of “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” in the Declaration of Independence.  Congress as a whole added the phrase, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”, after extensive debate.  Benjamin Franklin expressed his faith in the Providence of God during the Philadelphia Convention by calling for prayer for God’s guidance on their deliberations; “…The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” He declared. The Founding Fathers fervently prayed for God’s guidance as they debated the new government. The historical evidence is that God heard those prayers and answered them.

Throughout our history, whenever we have strayed from our principles as expressed in our founding documents, we have multiplied our problems. After a century of ignoring the Constitution and corrupting its meaning when convenient, it appears that we, as a nation, have lost our faith in both Divine Providence and America. Our national leaders no longer have faith in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the founding principles or American exceptionalism. Expressions of faith by a political leader, are routinely met with ridicule and derision by large segments of the “elite ruling class” and the popular media. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves on the very brink of losing the liberty so many Americans have sacrificed and died to protect.

In the Old Testament God used prophets to pronounce judgment on Israel and Judah for their idolatrous ways and to call for repentance. From our founding, there have been patriots whose roles in our origin and development as a nation were similar to the prophets of old. Early American prophets like, Samuel Bryan, Melancton Smith, Robert Yates and John DeWitt warned us about the dangers of a consolidated national government, an over-powerful executive, rogue courts with lifetime judges, the danger of internal taxes and the insatiable appetite for power of professional politicians. It is to them we owe the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is our protection against an out-of-control national government. In recent generations, we have allowed our internal enemies to use it instead, to deny us the liberty it was designed to protect, through perverted interpretation and application by the courts and rogue congresses. Instead of a shield of liberty, we have allowed it to be used as a tool of socialist tyranny. It is time for us to “bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” as a nation and reaffirm our faith in God, America, and American principles when we go to the polls in a few weeks to elect a new Congress.

Millions of Americans are discovering anew our founding documents and demanding that we return to the principles they espouse. For that to happen we cannot continue to vote for candidates who deny the principles of our Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights whatever the excuse. What we need today is a few modern day prophets like those of old who are willing to stand up to the powers that be and declare the judgment of God on America’s idolatrous apostasy from our founding principles.

Reprinted from “Christian Patriots

Oct. 2, 2010 One Nation Rally in D.C. – Socialists Well Represented

Tired of listening to people argue there are no socialist in the Democratic Party. Share this video with them.

Vodpod videos no longer available.