Defense
Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the Congress to spend money generated from taxes for the "common defense" of the Nation. In this context, "common defense" means the defense of the entire Nation.
George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
"To be prepared for war," as then General Washington stated, the Nation must have access to adequate funds to produce, train, and maintain a military force.
Our military must be provided the very best equipment, to enable our men and women to carry out their missions to the best of their ability. A strong show of force will in many situations ward off attacks (as General Washington said). James Madison stated, "Weakness will invite insults. The best way to avoid danger is to be in a capacity to withstand it."
Current military funding is 4% of GDP. During the Cold War military funding was nearly 6% GDP. We, as a Nation must be willing to provide as much money as our military requires to adequately protect the States and to win the wars engaged in. The U.S. military must be the strongest, best trained, and the most well-paid in the world.
George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
"To be prepared for war," as then General Washington stated, the Nation must have access to adequate funds to produce, train, and maintain a military force.
Our military must be provided the very best equipment, to enable our men and women to carry out their missions to the best of their ability. A strong show of force will in many situations ward off attacks (as General Washington said). James Madison stated, "Weakness will invite insults. The best way to avoid danger is to be in a capacity to withstand it."
Current military funding is 4% of GDP. During the Cold War military funding was nearly 6% GDP. We, as a Nation must be willing to provide as much money as our military requires to adequately protect the States and to win the wars engaged in. The U.S. military must be the strongest, best trained, and the most well-paid in the world.
Energy
The United States should not be dependent upon other nations for energy fuels. Exploration and drilling for oil, mining for coal, and harvesting natural gas should proceed "full speed ahead."
Wind and solar energy sources are renewable but they are not reliable. Nuclear energy appears to be the most likely source to provide our Nation's long-term energy needs. Although initially extremely expensive, nuclear energy may prove to be the cheapest, safest, and most abundant fuel source.
Global Warming
When Al Gore states that the debate about global warming is over, he may mean that he cannot adequately defend his position. I’m not convinced that there is a serious enough problem to require every industrialized nation to sign a treaty that will punish economic growth, such as will happen if the “cap and trade” legislation is passed.
Springfield, Missouri’s City Utilities, along with MSU, has produced information showing the devastating effects of the passage of this legislation. The costs of carbon sequestration will require nearly one-half of the daily output of electricity produced by the power plant causing electricity costs (passed on to the consumer) to be raised (nearly double).
My position on this matter does not mean that I don’t care about our environment. We must all be good stewards of what God has created. God gave mankind dominion over the earth – not the other way around. I do not believe that global warming exists - if it does, we are definitely experiencing global cooling during the winter months. I also oppose a cap on carbon green house emissions.
Springfield, Missouri’s City Utilities, along with MSU, has produced information showing the devastating effects of the passage of this legislation. The costs of carbon sequestration will require nearly one-half of the daily output of electricity produced by the power plant causing electricity costs (passed on to the consumer) to be raised (nearly double).
My position on this matter does not mean that I don’t care about our environment. We must all be good stewards of what God has created. God gave mankind dominion over the earth – not the other way around. I do not believe that global warming exists - if it does, we are definitely experiencing global cooling during the winter months. I also oppose a cap on carbon green house emissions.
Government Welfare
While we should all have a deep concern for the needy, the responsibility to care for those who have needs lies directly on the shoulders of individual citizens, not the government.
Ben Franklin wrote about the evils of federal government welfare and its encouragement of idleness. He said that “compassion can be counterproductive when it breeds dependence and weakness and when it blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living.”
Franklin’s assessment of welfare provided by our government is still true and relevant today. At its best it gives minimal sustenance to individuals and/or families. At its worst it encourages those receiving aid to perpetuate the lifestyle. While the intent may be good, this type of benevolence is replete with fraud and does little or nothing to inspire recipients to raise themselves to a place of self-sufficiency.
Americans must never turn a deaf ear to someone who has a true need, however, a shift in the method of delivery of those essentials is needed. Local communities have the potential ability to meet the needs of those requiring assistance (without the many levels of bureaucracy impedes the progress and breeding of corruption).
When the responsibility of providing welfare to persons who have true needs is returned to churches, companies, and individuals, a more direct oversight and management of welfare programs can be realized.
Ben Franklin wrote about the evils of federal government welfare and its encouragement of idleness. He said that “compassion can be counterproductive when it breeds dependence and weakness and when it blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living.”
Franklin’s assessment of welfare provided by our government is still true and relevant today. At its best it gives minimal sustenance to individuals and/or families. At its worst it encourages those receiving aid to perpetuate the lifestyle. While the intent may be good, this type of benevolence is replete with fraud and does little or nothing to inspire recipients to raise themselves to a place of self-sufficiency.
Americans must never turn a deaf ear to someone who has a true need, however, a shift in the method of delivery of those essentials is needed. Local communities have the potential ability to meet the needs of those requiring assistance (without the many levels of bureaucracy impedes the progress and breeding of corruption).
When the responsibility of providing welfare to persons who have true needs is returned to churches, companies, and individuals, a more direct oversight and management of welfare programs can be realized.
Healthcare
The healthcare system in the United States is in need of reform. Many people speak about making access to healthcare available to everyone, yet not many are addressing the topic of costs. While working in the allied-healthcare field, I don’t remember anyone being turned away and not treated. I do not believe that access to care is the problem. There certainly are uninsured and underinsured people in our country.
The real question, I think, should be, “why?” I know some of the uninsured. Some are in this predicament by choice. They have chosen to hedge a bet that they will not require long-term medical care. They bank the money that would have been spent on insurance premiums. When they require medical assistance, they pay the bill with their savings. What a novel idea!
The underinsured are another matter. Still, in situations such as these, medical care is available. The costs, not paid for by insurance or the patient, are spread to others who use the system. Of course, these unpaid fees are partly responsible for raising the costs of medical care.
Another reason costs rise is due to the payouts by insurance companies. When the costs of procedures takes money from the insurance pool, more money is needed to maintain a large enough reserve to offset the potential risks (and as a result insurance premiums rise).I’ve spoken to healthcare administrators and physicians who advocate reform – not government takeover.
Reform, however, must address one problem at a time. The health care law recently passed will punish individuals and companies by levying fines for non-participation. I find it odd that if/when passed the taxes to fund the plan will begin immediately; however, the actual healthcare plan will not be implemented for about four years. Tort reform is another must. When a patient is injured as a result of malpractice they should receive just compensation, not a windfall judgment. The latter will either bankrupt the system or, as it is doing now, perpetuate the increase in costs.
The real question, I think, should be, “why?” I know some of the uninsured. Some are in this predicament by choice. They have chosen to hedge a bet that they will not require long-term medical care. They bank the money that would have been spent on insurance premiums. When they require medical assistance, they pay the bill with their savings. What a novel idea!
The underinsured are another matter. Still, in situations such as these, medical care is available. The costs, not paid for by insurance or the patient, are spread to others who use the system. Of course, these unpaid fees are partly responsible for raising the costs of medical care.
Another reason costs rise is due to the payouts by insurance companies. When the costs of procedures takes money from the insurance pool, more money is needed to maintain a large enough reserve to offset the potential risks (and as a result insurance premiums rise).I’ve spoken to healthcare administrators and physicians who advocate reform – not government takeover.
Reform, however, must address one problem at a time. The health care law recently passed will punish individuals and companies by levying fines for non-participation. I find it odd that if/when passed the taxes to fund the plan will begin immediately; however, the actual healthcare plan will not be implemented for about four years. Tort reform is another must. When a patient is injured as a result of malpractice they should receive just compensation, not a windfall judgment. The latter will either bankrupt the system or, as it is doing now, perpetuate the increase in costs.
State Sovereignty
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All powers not specifically delegated to the Congress of the United States by this Constitution, nor prohibited to the states by this Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people."
This amendment maintains the sovereignty of each of the individual states... period! The Missouri State Legislature is in the process of gaining support for a Missouri Sovereignty Project. We are already a sovereign state - we simply need to act like one.
In 1823, Thomas Jefferson stated, "... I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington."
The Federal government has clearly over-reached its Constitutional limitations by its involvement in education, welfare, banking, and healthcare, and more. How much more government involvement in our lives do we want? I for one want LESS Washington, D.C. in my life!
We do not need the permission of the Federal government to take action as a sovereign state. Let's send a message to our State Legislators to take advantage of our sovereignty - whether the Federal government likes it or not. The Constitution has already guaranteed it!
Abortion
Some argue that a woman has the liberty to choose abortion and this should remain a private matter. Others defend abortion, saying that unwanted pregnancies will result in abused and neglected children. Sometimes abortion is used as a method of birth control.
With regard to morality, however, abortion is not complex at all. An example by Jarrod J. Williamson, shows just how simple the morality issue truly is. Imagine you are doing the dishes in your kitchen sink, up to your elbows in soap suds and water. Your five-year old son walks up behind you. He asks, "Mommy, can I kill this?" Immediately, before you even have a chance to turn around, the first thought that flashes through your head is, "What the heck is it?!" If it is an ugly, icky Black Widow spider, you will quickly knock it out of your son's hands and kill it yourself. If it is the neighbor boy's puppy, the answer is an immediate, "No! And just what were you thinking, even wondering if you can kill a puppy?" We all know that, essentially, whether or not you are permitted to kill something depends upon just what it is you are killing. Or do we?
So, the critical question is, “What is the unborn?” Let’s apply this question to the right of privacy. Should a woman be allowed to abuse her child as long as it’s done in private? Certainly not. But why not? Privacy does not justify harming another human. If the unborn is human (and it is), like the child, we must protect the unborn.
If the unborn is not human, no justification for abortion is needed. If, however, the unborn is a human being (again, I say, “It is”) justification will be difficult. Once again, the most important question is, “What is the unborn?”
Many will still defend the decision to abort by saying, “Women should have the right to choose.” I agree that women have the right to choose what they wear, where they work, what to eat, who to marry, etc. Some choices are wrong, however, like abusing their child or even worse, killing their child.
Still, some will say that an unborn child is not a person. Allow me to explain, with the S.L.E.D. test that unborn babies deserve protection. I heard the S.L.E.D. test explained on a Focus on the Family broadcast. The acronym S.L.E.D. stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.
First, size. The unborn are smaller than other humans. But size is irrelevant. Football players are larger than infants. Men are larger that women but that does not mean they have more rights. Size is not relevant to value.
Second, level of development. Unborn babies are less developed that newborns. Toddlers are less developed than teenagers. Is a t-ball player less valuable as a human than his professional league player father? The father is potentially earning millions of dollars, the boy is not. Would you not agree, though, that they are both valuable?
Third, environment. Does your location have a bearing on who you are? Earlier today I was in a cow pasture. Later, I traveled 20 miles from home. Does a distance of a few inches (down the birth canal) change the unborn into a human and make it more valuable? A change in environment, from inside the womb to outside the womb, does not increase a person’s value.
Fourth, degree of dependency. The unborn is fully dependent upon the mother, but so is the newborn. Does this dependency make either of them more or less valuable? Does this dependency make them less human? How about the diver who is totally dependent upon oxygen tanks to breathe, or the person who is dependent upon insulin to control sugar in the blood? Are they any less human? Are they any less valuable because of their dependency?
The answer to each of these questions is an emphatic, “NO!”
Abortion is wrong! Even when the mother’s life is in danger, every effort to save the lives of both the mother and the unborn child should be employed.
With regard to morality, however, abortion is not complex at all. An example by Jarrod J. Williamson, shows just how simple the morality issue truly is. Imagine you are doing the dishes in your kitchen sink, up to your elbows in soap suds and water. Your five-year old son walks up behind you. He asks, "Mommy, can I kill this?" Immediately, before you even have a chance to turn around, the first thought that flashes through your head is, "What the heck is it?!" If it is an ugly, icky Black Widow spider, you will quickly knock it out of your son's hands and kill it yourself. If it is the neighbor boy's puppy, the answer is an immediate, "No! And just what were you thinking, even wondering if you can kill a puppy?" We all know that, essentially, whether or not you are permitted to kill something depends upon just what it is you are killing. Or do we?
So, the critical question is, “What is the unborn?” Let’s apply this question to the right of privacy. Should a woman be allowed to abuse her child as long as it’s done in private? Certainly not. But why not? Privacy does not justify harming another human. If the unborn is human (and it is), like the child, we must protect the unborn.
If the unborn is not human, no justification for abortion is needed. If, however, the unborn is a human being (again, I say, “It is”) justification will be difficult. Once again, the most important question is, “What is the unborn?”
Many will still defend the decision to abort by saying, “Women should have the right to choose.” I agree that women have the right to choose what they wear, where they work, what to eat, who to marry, etc. Some choices are wrong, however, like abusing their child or even worse, killing their child.
Still, some will say that an unborn child is not a person. Allow me to explain, with the S.L.E.D. test that unborn babies deserve protection. I heard the S.L.E.D. test explained on a Focus on the Family broadcast. The acronym S.L.E.D. stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.
First, size. The unborn are smaller than other humans. But size is irrelevant. Football players are larger than infants. Men are larger that women but that does not mean they have more rights. Size is not relevant to value.
Second, level of development. Unborn babies are less developed that newborns. Toddlers are less developed than teenagers. Is a t-ball player less valuable as a human than his professional league player father? The father is potentially earning millions of dollars, the boy is not. Would you not agree, though, that they are both valuable?
Third, environment. Does your location have a bearing on who you are? Earlier today I was in a cow pasture. Later, I traveled 20 miles from home. Does a distance of a few inches (down the birth canal) change the unborn into a human and make it more valuable? A change in environment, from inside the womb to outside the womb, does not increase a person’s value.
Fourth, degree of dependency. The unborn is fully dependent upon the mother, but so is the newborn. Does this dependency make either of them more or less valuable? Does this dependency make them less human? How about the diver who is totally dependent upon oxygen tanks to breathe, or the person who is dependent upon insulin to control sugar in the blood? Are they any less human? Are they any less valuable because of their dependency?
The answer to each of these questions is an emphatic, “NO!”
Abortion is wrong! Even when the mother’s life is in danger, every effort to save the lives of both the mother and the unborn child should be employed.