DC FAQs

What evidence is there for your claim of opposing Obama since 2004?
In 2004 when Barack Obama ran against Alan Keyes for Illinois' U.S. Senate seat, I posted on Alan Keyes' campaign forum at RenewAmerica.com. The posts are still visible there showing that I was pro-Keyes, anti-Obama, and supported 3rd party presidential candidate Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) instead of Bush or Kerry. Indeed, many of the same positions I hold today are evident from my posts there. I was pro-life, for traditional marriage, and against the Iraq War. The vast majority of my beliefs have changed very little over the 12 years since then. A sampling of my posts:

I just voted today for Peroutka as well. But if you're not voting Keyes, then who? Obama? The guy who think live birth abortions are ok and has voted down 3 bills to stop that abomination? He can't even defend his position on it, just says "I'll let GOD judge me" about it. Keyes is a better choice than Obama any day because he'll actually do something about abortion, the instrument of mass murder that's taken 50 million lives already. And Obama will do what he can to support abortion, he's made that abundantly clear. Unlike with presidential candidates, there are no 3rd party candidates for senator that I know of. (11/02/2004)

I don't support Kerry because he support abortion, but I'm just going to lay the facts out on the table... We went to war for much the same reasons we went to war with Iraq... No reasons. We were waging a war we shouldn't have been in and that we couldn't win, the American people expected a fast victory after just a year or 2 but instead it ended up going, what, 15 years? Even if Kerry hadn't spoken up about it you'd think the dense American public would have eventually caught on that maybe the war wasn't such a good idea after all... eventually... by speaking up when he did he may have saved the lives of many soldiers who would have died otherwise. But again, I find myself unable to vote for either Kerry or Bush in good conscience. Hopefully the war in Iraq will not last 15 years... (09/15/2004)

How can your economic views be conservative?

 * ''See Welfare and Usury.

Given my advocacy for trade restrictions, reduced military spending, and limitations on executive compensation the question is expected. However, I define conservatism by historical standards, not current standards. The Republican Party from the days of Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s until at least the 1930s with Herbert Hoover was protectionist, and supported tariffs and trade restrictions to protect American industry. Free trade was always a liberal, left-wing invention, and began with F.D.R. and Truman, per the Global Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.

Reduced government spending has always been a hallmark of Republicanism, and indeed its arguably earliest standard-bearer was Thomas Jefferson, whose Anti-Federalists preceded the GOP, just as Democrats had the Federalists as their predecessors. Jefferson’s presidency reduced government spending, as well as military spending, in favor of a militia-based defense, and abandoned internal revenue taxes entirely in favor of tariffs (not a measure I would advocate).

Similarly with regulation of big business. Republicans during the early 20th century aggressively restricted business monopolization and executive pay, see e.g. Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Benjamin Harrison (whose Republican Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act). During this time, Republicans enacted trustbusting measures to break up monopolies and protect small businesses from the anti-competitive practices of big business.

At any rate, from a historical perspective, my proposed reforms can be considered both Republican and conservative, even though public works programs are mainly affiliated with FDR. Nonetheless, simplistic job-creation programs through public works were originally Republican in nature. See e.g. Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and other anti-Federalists who were the earliest advocates for public works programs, or the early Republican Party of the 19th century. The 1860 Republican Party platform advocated a public works program, building a trans-continental railroad, and stated "appropriations by Congress for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution."

Regardless of history aren't Democrats the ones who aid the poor and minorities now?
See also Economic Comparison, Civil Rights, Income Disparity, Great Recession

As I pointed out in Ch. 2, employment and income equality are better in Republican states and when Republicans run Congress. As I point out on pg. 54, an EPI report finds that the richest 5% of Americans got 81.7% of all wealth gain from 1983-2009 while the poorest 60% of Americans got poorer and lost 7.5% of all wealth gain. I.e. the rich got richer and the poor got poorer from 1983-2009. However, Democrats increased the minimum wage from $3.35 to $7.25 an hour during that time. If minimum wage increases help the poor, doubling the minimum wage should have produced greater prosperity for them, but instead the result was catastrophic income inequality harming them. Similarly with the seemingly well-meaning effort by Democrats to force banks to lend to poor borrowers using Adjustable Rate Mortgages with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which I addressed on pg. 31. Ultimately the result was a housing industry collapsing like a deck of cards.

Democrats had a long period of near-complete control of Congress from 1934 to 1994. They had 60 years to help out the poor with their programs on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TANF, etc. However, during that period the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The Democrats' greatest social welfare programs, Social Security and Medicare, are bankrupting the country. And the myriad of welfare programs instituted by Democrats have failed to combat rising unemployment, unemployment which is higher when Democrats run Congress and in Democratic states. Republican states have better employment, debt, and income equality than Democrat states. At a national level, when Republican runs Congress, employment is higher, median incomes are higher, there is more income equality, and of course, there is lower national debt.

That Republicans are still the party of civil rights is evident from recent legislation like the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, with Republicans fighting for the right to life of newly born children outside the womb, and Democrats opposing it. Democrats want the poor subjugated, dependent on handouts rather than independent and employed. That is why race relations have progressed so little since the 1960s, and minorities continue to suffer higher poverty rates, despite the numerous Democrat programs like Affirmative Action and welfare programs implemented such as TANF. Democrats had virtually non-stop control of Congress from 1933 to 1994, if their agenda helped the poor and minorities, why did the rich get richer and the poor poorer, particularly with such gains displaying racial bias, during that time period?

Isn't it intolerant/judgmental/homophobic to oppose gay marriage?

 * See my pages at BibleStrength.com on Judge Not and 1 Corinthians 2.

As pointed out by Michael Horner, intolerance comes from the word tolerate, and you cannot "tolerate" someone you already agree with. The word "tolerate" implies disagreement. In essence, simply disagreeing with gay marriage is not "intolerance;" as pointed out by Horner, "If we were truly intolerant, we would seek to silence other points of view."

Some people might question this, saying it is intolerant to think only one religion has things right. But this response shows a misunderstanding of what intolerance really is. Intolerance comes from the word 'tolerate.' To tolerate means to allow something, such as a belief, to exist even though we don’t like it or agree with it. Tolerance does not mean never disagreeing with anybody. The word implies disagreement. True tolerance means allowing differing views to coexist without necessarily agreeing with them or claiming that all views are true. Therefore, we can hold that one view is true or better than other views without being intolerant. If we were truly intolerant, we would seek to silence other points of view. But merely engaging in persuasive conversation with someone you disagree with is not intolerance. We show more respect for each other when we take our religious claims seriously than when we clothe them in a patronizing cloak of relativism. -Michael Horner

Ultimately, the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is religious freedom. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The advocates of gay marriage are directly attacking this right by attempting to force pastors to turn over their sermons relating to the gay lifestyle, attempting to destroy the freedom of speech by those like Phil Robertson who quote what the Bible says on homosexuality , and suing business owners who don't want to engage in actions which violate their Biblical beliefs, e.g. photographers that don't want to photograph gay weddings or cake designers that don't want to make specialty cakes with same-sex figurines or names.

At a deeper level, advocates of gay marriage seek to circumvent the U.S. Constitution's fundamental principle of democracy, by invalidating both laws passed by Congress (e.g. the Defense of Marriage Act) and laws passed in 30 states prohibiting same-sex marriage decided by ballot referendum, i.e. popular vote. The 14th Amendment prohibiting slavery was passed by states which overwhelmingly had laws prohibiting sodomy on the books. At the time the Constitution was created, 8 of the original 13 colonies in the 1770s required public officials be Christian, as I pointed out on pg. 141. To claim that expressing a belief homosexuality is wrong is "homophobic" is to call not only the founding fathers but the same legislators who passed the 14th Amendment prohibiting slavery homophobic.

Homosexuality is a sexual lifestyle just like bestiality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and incest. This is evident from Gallup polling, as I pointed out on pg. 175, which reveals that those ages 18-29 are three times more likely than those ages 65 and older to identify as LGBT (6.4% to 1.9%), and twice as likely as those 30-49. (3.2%) Furthermore, women 18-29 are almost twice as likely as their male counterparts to identify as LGBT. (8.3% to 4.6%) It makes no sense for homosexuality to be genetic if there are clear age and gender differences, rather the logical conclusion is that it is a sexual lifestyle choice. And as such, there is no logical reason it should be immune to regulation any more than other sexual lifestyles.

One can disagree with gay marriage being morally acceptable, and disagree with it being sanctioned by society, without necessarily hating those who engage in it. That is why on pg. 183 I observed that the Bible says everyone is sinful before God, and rather than singling out homosexuals says that everyone is guilty before God and needs to repent. (Romans 3) Ultimately we are responsible for warning them to repent and change their wrong, self-destructive decisions for their own good, just as we are with everyone else, from a Christian perspective. That is not hateful or intolerant, but consistent with the religious freedom and First Amendment rights expressed by founders such as Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. (pg. 129)

If anything, the advocates of gay marriage have shown themselves intolerant of the rights of others, by attacking their First Amendment rights and subverting the democratic process.