There is an interesting thing about three legged stools that even grade-school children have figured out. Without one of the three legs to support the stool, it falls over. And often, to help support those legs, there are spokes or a band that run around the legs, and a seat at the top which is there to support, in relative comfort, a seated individual.
Our government works in a similar manner. The President of the United States, the United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives serve as the three legs, the Judicial Branch serves as the band of spokes, and seated on the top is "We The People." Conservatism understands this, and supports the idea given by the United States Constitution, that the federal government needs checks and balances to remain standing and functioning properly. Each leg is important in ensuring the government runs well, and though not necessary to support it all, the judicial branch is important in helping to hold it together. Conservatives believe that the federal government should be limited so that the states may rule their own without too great of centralized influence.
The three legged stool also makes its appearance in what's important to the conservative voter. Last night on Joshua P. Allem's Blog Talk Radio show this trio of issue groups was brought to light by the host: Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservatism, and Strong National Security. For some voters, only one or two of those legs are important, and the others are non-issues, and then there are those like myself in which all three are important not only as issues, but as indications of the character of a candidate.
On the Democrat side the difference between the two remaining candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, are so minor that they are both equally dangerous to this nation should one of them wind up president. Hillary Clinton is the Marxist that is willing to ". . . garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans," and Barack Obama is the un-American racist that refused to put his hand on his heart for the National Anthem, attends an unashamedly all black church that holds an allegiance to Africa over America, and has a strong Muslim connection.
In addition to the above reasons, the fact that both Democrat candidates believe we should allow the enemy to use Iraq as a launching pad for terrorism by pulling our troops out and leaving that region bare and vulnerable, their lack of wise economic positions (worse, believe it or not, than even Bush's positions when it comes to spending), and their poor positions on the social issues, there is no way I could ever, in good conscience, allow myself to vote for a Democrat.
That leaves the Republicans, because let's face it, as much as I like some of the independent candidates, this is a two-party system. Okay, now back to that stool. Why is it I have hammered on McCain so much, and though it is a difficult pill to swallow, have given my support to Mitt Romney?
First leg of the stool, Social Conservatism. The gay marriage issue is a large issue with me. I do not believe that the Christian Institution of Marriage should be sacreligiously given to people who are in obvious opposition to scriptural codes of conduct and morals. However, that does not mean I believe that any people should be denied rights as "individuals." Liberals don't understand that, because for some reason, on that issue, they see it as either you are Pro-Gay Rights, or Anti-Gay Rights. Either you accept homosexuality completely, or you are some bigoted hate-monger. This is where their simple minds tend to reach the red zone. All of the Republican Candidates seem to agree with me, or so I thought. Then I found out that when the vote came on the Contitutional Amendment to protect traditional marriage and prohibit same-sex marriage - an Amendment introduced in response to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision forcing that state to recognize such "marriages," John McCain voted "No."
When it comes to the abortion issue, once again, liberals blur what the issue is all about. I believe that abortion not about whether people should simply have the "choice" to indescriminately murder unborn children, but is about whether or not to keep legal the growing practice of the genocide of unborn children. Mike Huckabee agrees with me on that position one hundred percent. Mitt Romney used to support "pro-choice," but has since changed his mind and moved to the pro-life position. McCain claims he is pro-life, and that he has always been pro-life, yet has said that the pro-life leaders are "the agents of intolerance."
The private ownership of weapons is a huge issue with me, and both Governor Huckabee and Romney have indicated that the Second Ammendment is primarily about self-defense, not hunting. The Second Ammendment right belongs to individuals, not to cities or states, and any law to ban weapons is unconstitutional. People forget that in 1911 Turkey established gun control, and then rounded up and exterminated 1.5 million Armenians that were unable to defend themselves. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control and then rounded up and exterminated 20 million unarmed dissidents. Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945 rounded up and exterminated 13 million Jews (and others) who were unable to defend themselves. China established gun control in 1935, and from 1948 to 1952 rounded up and exterminated 20 million political dissidents. Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970, and 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated during the '70's. Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Australia has recently established gun control laws, forcing Australians to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, costing taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. Since gun control laws have been established in Australia, homicides are up 3.2 percent, assaults are up 8.6 percent, and armed robberies are up 44 percent. This after during the previous 25 years there was a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms. The laws took weapons away from law-abiding citizens, while allowing criminals to retain their weapons and providing defenseless prey for them. The Australian leaders are at a loss on how to explain the decrease of public safety. Have you ever wondered why, aside from bombing runs and 9/11, American shores have never been invaded? During World War II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew that the American populace was armed!
Where does McCain, the War Hero, the political "maverick," stand on the private ownership of guns? Well, he doesn't own a weapon, and has supported initiatives that severely regulate gun shows and gun buyers. In 1999, Mr. McCain changed his vote on a gun-control measure favored by the Clinton administration from Nay to Yea, which nearly allowed the measure to become law. It took significant and very expensive efforts on the part of Tom Delay, then the House Republican Whip, to put together a coalition of Republicans and anti-gun control Democrats to stop the measure from passing in the House and becoming law. In 2001, McCain pushed legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home. The legislation didn't take into account that when using guns for self-defense gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. Research indicates that McCain's push for gunlocks was far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saved.
The second leg of the stool is fiscal responsibility. When it comes to the economy, McCain has made it a point to indicate that the economy is not his strong suit, and from past records, both Huckabee and McCain are not strong on that issue. Mike Huckabee is a "spender" like George W. Bush, and McCain sends mixed messages with his economic record, is the co-sponsor of a freedom of speech killing political finance law, and voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Romney, the businessman, and economic wiz, has the economic end of this drive for the presidency all wrapped up. The one criticism of Romney is the increase of fees in Massachusetts he initiated. But, if you read the details, you realize those fees were raised to ease the taxpayer burden since the fees were too low when compared to processing costs which were higher based on the rise of inflation over the last 30 years.
The third leg of the stool is National Security, and that leg is the deal-breaker for most Conservatives. Huckabee is obviously not the man best equipped for this particular leg of the stool partially due to his lack of experience. Romney says the right things, and is in strong support of the war on terror, but there is no record to fall back on. McCain, on this issue, plays his "I'm a War Hero" card over and over and over again. But is McCain really the right guy for our National Security?
One of the largest keys to our security is the border. Huckabee has proven to be weak on immigration, and McCain is now famous as being the "Amnesty" candidate. Buzzzzzz. Point there awarded to Mitt Romney.
Huckabee has said that we "broke" Iraq, and that he feels we should have a timetable for a withdrawl from Iraq. Huckabee has also indicated that he would close, and relocate to the states, Guantanamo Bay. Mitt Romney has shown the determination to protect us as a nation, demonstrating a grasp of the foreign policy challenges we face from radical jihadists who want to kill us, and from states with bad leaders, like Iran.
John McCain has proclaimed that waterboarding does not work, and will not use it as president, which is a serious downfall in dealing with the Islamic Jihad of today. Fact is, the only way to protect our nation from killers is to kill the killers, and to do what it takes to retrieve the information we need to find the killers. Waterboarding has proven to reveal terrorist plots and protect American lives. McCain's continuing habit of joining with liberals in opposing tough interogation techniques, even though he admits that our terrorist enemies have not the slighest qualms about torturing and killing captured Americans, is not a very good national security position.
John McCain also supports the infamous Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is yet another key globalist hitchpin in forcing America to surrender our sovereignty and experiment in global taxation and socialism. Bill Clinton signed this disasterous treaty and McCain, like most Democrats, supported Senate ratification of the treaty to make it the law of our land.
After all of my research regarding the candidates, I had no choice, today, but to cast my California Primary vote for Mitt Romney. He is the only candidate that supports the seat of the people with all three legs of the stool.
Unfortunately, right now, McCain is picking up more delegates than Mitt, and Huckabee is doing well as well. . .
More on Super Tuesday later tonight after most of the votes come in.
No comments:
Post a Comment