churchtostate.com

Today as McCain was interviewed on “The View” we were treated to this gem of a question by Whoopi Goldberg:

“Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.”

If you check out the quote in context, you will see that McCain is talking about appointing strict constructionist judges.  The question exposes a misunderstanding of what conservatives are taking aim at with strict constitutionalist judges.   We aren’t trying to go back in time to the writing of the constitution.  The root argument goes back to the idea of checks and balances and the seperation of powers.

Judges are not supposed to legislate or write law, but they are to judge cases against written law, and review legislation or executive action to determine if it is counter to the Constitution, the high law of the land.  The Judiciary is a check on the other two branches, and is in turn checked by the other branches.  When a judge creates a right, such as Roe v. Wade, the proper establishment of law through the elected representatives of the people is subverted.

What is most ironic about Whoopi’s comments is that the infamous Dread Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was an example of judicial activism.  The 13th and 14th Amendments, abolishing slavery and granting equal protection under the law, were on the other hand enacted by Congress and ratified by the States.  Conservatives do not think that we need to go back to slavery.  What we do believe is that those kind of changes need to happen within the framework for change established by the Constitution.

The elected representives, those representing the smallest number of people, the U.S. Congress, is the only branch that should be in the business of writing law.  The amendment process was put in place precisely because the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to realize their limitations in addressing all situations this country would face in the future.  Sleep easy Ms. Goldberg.

Hooray… the latest job numbers came out today and although unemployment is down slightly, there was a net loss in the number of jobs over the last month.  This has lead to a media and Democratic presidential candidate feeding frenzy. Of course because a Republican is in the White House they take every opportunity to attempt to pin the blame on Bush.

It seems to me that a large part of the economic fluctuation we see is not directly related to politics — the sub-prime mortgage crisis is one such environmental factor.  However it would behoove us to remember that the Democrats seized control of congress over a year ago and have been churning out economic policy that suits their fancy.

Does anyone remember what happened in July of 2007?  That’s right boys and girls, the minimum wage was raised.  Now according to the Democrats this was to be the panacea for poverty in America.  After 8 months, all we have to show is fewer jobs and rising prices.  Color me cynical, but isn’t that exactly what conservative economist say happens when the minimum wage is increased.

Now I can’t blame all of this on the Democrats because plenty of Republicans went along, including our Commander in Chief.  It just bothers me that less than a year down the road no one is connecting the dots between fewer jobs and the increasing minimum wage.  I don’t expect anyone to come out and pinpoint this one policy as the blame for everything, but when those in the economic know warned us about wage fixing, and then the predicted results come down the pike, shouldn’t that raise a red flag?

Has anyone else noticed the Democratic Presidential candidates running around trumpeting their environmental plans as having the added bonus of creating jobs and boosting the economy? This is exactly the kind of economic ignorance that should not be allowed on the Senate floor, let alone the highest office in the land. The mesmerized minions of Obama, and those still clinging to hope in the Clinton camp (both of you) need to take a good hard look at this rhetoric.

First, I won’t deny that more draconian environmental rules, coupled with heavy handed enforcement won’t create some jobs. The question is, will these jobs add to the productivity of society as a whole? If the jobs are not adding to the value of the economy, then by definition their creation is detracting from the economy. So for every new “green” position, there will be a job lost, a dividend cut, declining quality, or a price raised to support it.

I am not saying that environmental regulations have no place in society, they do. What I am saying is that advertising them as a boost to the economy is flat out deception. I learned this from Thomas Sowell: when a company pollutes a river, there is a real cost that is associated with that action. The cost of the declining health in the area, lost recreational revenues, or of cleaning up the river are not clearly tied to the offending company. This is where government fines and enforcement of regulations makes sense, in tying real costs to the originators of such costs.

As it stands, the American public are being sold a win-win. Elect a democrat; clean the environment; boost the economy! We might as well be told that all of our wildest dreams will come true. However, in this time of economic softness, we should consider whether chasing an expensive ethereal environmental boogeyman is worth our time and money.

Just the other day I read an article about a Southern Baptist preacher being pursued by the IRS because he endorsed Mike Huckabee on official church stationary. If we leave aside the points that the Democrats seem to have no problem basically using churches as political rally venues, and that separation of church and state is meant to keep the state out of the church and not vice versa, it seems we can make another strong argument for the FairTax.

Under the FairTax, donations are not tax deductible — there is no need for it because we would be receiving our full paycheck from our employers without taxes being taken out. Thus there is nothing to deduct from. And no, charitable donations no longer being a tax deduction should not affect giving. FairTax.org addresses the issue in this PDF.

If there was no fear that a change in tax exempt status threatens its fiscal stability, the church could fully throw its weight in to the arena of politics, as it should. The church is the conscience of our country, but its influence is smothered by fear of the IRS. A pastor, as any other leader should be free to endorse any candidate with the full weight and authority of his position behind him. Why should the IRS exercise a selective gag over any political speech?

I realize this does not address the state levied taxes on church property. It would be up to the individual states to repeal their current taxation systems and fall in line with a consumption tax such as the FairTax. However, if the FairTax goal could be achieved, it would do a lot to free religious organizations to once again participate in society.

One aside… while writing this I noticed that PETA is recognized as a charitable non-profit in the U.S.! That has to make your head swim when you consider the extent of their political involvement.

I may be late to the blogging scene, but I found I was tired of just posting notes at the bottom of blogs written by individuals with no more credentials for espousing an opinion than I have.  Now I can look like a big-shot too… if I can just find the time to get a more attractive WordPress theme.

So this is it — my little space on the internet for calling it the way I see it.  This way I can have a record a year from now when I am either totally wrong, totally right, or somewhere in between.   I would love to see some of my friends and family comment or even post.  Let me know if you are interested.