Would You Vote For Me?

[didymus]

I'm an independent-minder Republican, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

Solving this country's economic woes is easy. We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. To accomplish this we must:

1. Get rid of the department of Education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to control or fund education.

2. Get rid of the department of Homeland Security. We already have a department of Defense, and it is their job to defend the United States of America. We don't need a department bogged down with beaurocracy to secure this country. It is redundant.

3. Get rid of the IRS. This is an unconstitutional agency. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes.

4. Get us out from under the Federal Reserve. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

5. We must get rid of paper money. The Constitution only authorizes coins as legal tender. By using paper money, it is easier for the government to print phony money.

6. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

That, my friends is my platform, should I decide to run for President.

What do you think?


11-15-2010: Changed my party affiliation to Republican so I changed the first sentence to refect that change

[kangaroojack]

Nov 12, 2010 10:36:55 GMT -5 @didymus said:

I'm an Independent, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

Solving this country's economic woes is easy. We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. To accomplish this we must:

1. Get rid of the department of Education. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the Federal government to control or fund education.

2. Get rid of the department of Homeland Security. We already have a department of Defense, and it is their job to defend the United States of America. We don't need a department bogged down with beaurocracy to secure this country. It is redundant.

3. Get rid of the IRS. This is an unconstitutional agency. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes.

4. Get us out from under the Federal Reserve. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

5. We must get rid of paper money. The Constitution only authorizes coins as legal tender. By using paper money, it is easier for the government to print phony money.

6. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

7. On the first day of my administration, I will, by executive order, place a moritorium on all abortions in the United States, and United States territories, until such a time Congress convenes a special committee to determine the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade.

8. Early in my administration, I will, by executive order, place a moritorum on State laws that are the result of arm-twisting by an unconstitutional act of either past Congresses, or past executive administrations. For example, seat belt laws are the result of extortion by the Reagan Adminstration. This moritorium will be permanent unless a State can show that their seat belt laws are not the result of arm-twisting of Reagan Administration.

That, my friends is my platform, should I decide to run for President.

What do you think?

Christians should not vote. Neither should Christians covet to sit in the oval office for the kingdom of God does not come by force but by the preaching of the gospel. We are pilgrims here. Pilgrims are non-citizens and they should act like non-citizens.

blessings,

Roo

[Once4all]

Nov 12, 2010 11:55:22 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Christians should not vote. Neither should Christians covet to sit in the oval office for the kingdom of God does not come by force but by the preaching of the gospel. We are pilgrims here. Pilgrims are non-citizens and they should act like non-citizens.

blessings,

Roo

Now there's a discussion waiting to happen!

Roo, how do you feel about Christians in the Armed Forces?

[kangaroojack]

Nov 12, 2010 17:52:17 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Nov 12, 2010 11:55:22 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Christians should not vote. Neither should Christians covet to sit in the oval office for the kingdom of God does not come by force but by the preaching of the gospel. We are pilgrims here. Pilgrims are non-citizens and they should act like non-citizens.

blessings,

Roo

Now there's a discussion waiting to happen!

Roo, how do you feel about Christians in the Armed Forces?

I haven't thought about that too much. The U.S. did have a right to retaliate when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because God has ordained government to protect its people. So I could see a christian participating in war in that instance though I am still not sure.

I used to vote and all that but have realized that this is trusting in man. Many christians argue that Paul invoked his citizenship in the book of acts. But this was when he was a younger christian. The mature Paul said that we are pilgrims here and that our citizenship is in heaven.

I know I go against the 'christian' flow.

Roo

[didymus]

Here's an update.

Items 7 & 8 of the platform has been changed. They now read like this:

7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

[kangaroojack]

Nov 17, 2010 18:02:24 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Here's an update.

Items 7 & 8 of the platform has been changed. They now read like this:

7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

Would you do everything you can to ban Christmas?

Roo

[didymus]

Nov 17, 2010 20:52:30 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Nov 17, 2010 18:02:24 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Here's an update.

Items 7 & 8 of the platform has been changed. They now read like this:

7. I will do whatever I can to end abortion.

8. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

Would you do everything you can to ban Christmas?

Roo

The short answer is 'no.' Such a thing is not in the purview of the President. Besides, eventhough I don't celebrate Christmas, I do understand that people in this country have the Constitutional right to do so.

I will lead by example. It won't be too long till people realize the new President does not celebrate Christmas. And what do you think the media will do with that bit of information?

[kangaroojack]

Nov 19, 2010 11:43:01 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Nov 17, 2010 20:52:30 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Would you do everything you can to ban Christmas?

Roo

The short answer is 'no.' Such a thing is not in the purview of the President. Besides, eventhough I don't celebrate Christmas, I do understand that people in this country have the Constitutional right to do so.

I will lead by example. It won't be too long till people realize the new President does not celebrate Christmas. And what do you think the media will do with that bit of information?

Chill Didy...I was joking.

Roo

[didymus]

Nov 19, 2010 14:42:38 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Nov 19, 2010 11:43:01 GMT -5 @didymus said:

The short answer is 'no.' Such a thing is not in the purview of the President. Besides, eventhough I don't celebrate Christmas, I do understand that people in this country have the Constitutional right to do so.

I will lead by example. It won't be too long till people realize the new President does not celebrate Christmas. And what do you think the media will do with that bit of information?

Chill Didy...I was joking.

Roo

Roo,

That looks like an angry smilie holding that "Ban" sign.

Either way, since you brought it up I thought it deserved an answer. So, what do you think of my answer?

[didymus]

My platform has evolved. How do you like it now?
--------------------------------------

I'm an independent-minded Republican, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

SOLVING THIS COUNTRY'S PROBLEMS WITH SIMPLE SOLUTIONS

We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. However, I realize, while the solution is simple, implementation of the solution may not be.

1. Eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional Federal agencies and departments. One that is unnecessary is the Department of Education. The nation's children would best be served by an education system that is primarily controlled by parents, then the States.

The IRS and the Federal Reserve are unconstitutional. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

Other examples of agencies and departments that are unnecessary or unconstitutional are the FDA, ATF, and Homeland Security. The Department of Commerce can take up the slack left by elimination of the FDA and the ATF.

As far as Homeland Security is concerned, as President I would not jeopardize security for a mere political whim. But, we have the CIA, FBI, and military intelligence. All we need is for these agencies to communicate with one another, and then report to the President. Only the government control aspects of Homeland Security will be totally eliminated. There will be no more spying on the American people, such as listening to phone conversation without due process of law. No more TSA groping sessions at airports.

I believe it is possible to protect the American people from terrorist attacks without violating their Constitutionally protected rights and privacy.

2. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

3. I will do whatever is in the power of the President to end abortion. I will start with a Presidential Proclamation that the unborn are persons and have rights under the 14th Amendment.

4. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

I do not believe it is Constitutional for the Executive Branch of the Federal government to extort States into passing legislation. Such as what Elizabeth Dole did while Secretary of Transportation when she told the States to change the drinking age to 21, or not receive their Transportation dollars. She did the same thing to get States to pass seat belt legislation.

5. While I am opposed to unnecessary and unconstitutional agencies and departments, I do have a proposal for the establishment of a Department of Constitutional Services. The purpose for this department would be two-fold. 1. To assure that the actions of the Executive Branch of Government are constitutional. 2. To assure that the Constitutional rights and privileges of the citizens of the United States are not infginged or otherwise violated.

That's the main body of my platform. Other issues will be addressed as needed.

[didymus]

My understanding of Entitlements you could say is the difference between "now and then."

Does anyone remember what this nation was like before entitlements? Parents took care of their children, and when the parents got old, the children took care of their parents. Parents were not shoved into a home and forgotten about, paid for by some entitlement. In times of trouble, communities helped one another, and churches helped people as well.

Even during the "great depression," THERE WAS NOT ONE ENTITLEMENT THAT HELPED ANYONE. I wanted to make that point plain. If you can find one entitlement that helped one person through the great deperession, I would like to know about it. There was no cash assistance, no food stamps, and no Social Security. By the time any governemnt program started, the depression was pretty much over.

You might wonder where I get my facts. I talked to people who lived through those years, like my dad, my mother, aunts and uncles, and older people when I volunteered at a nursing home. One lady was very specific. While the government would have us believe that if it weren't for the government people would not have made it though the great depression. But, older folks that lived through those days had a different story. That one lady at the nursing home pretty much hated the government for their lies. She was upset with her children for putting her in a home. "This didn't happen when I was younger," she said. "We took care of our parents." She had a lot to say about those days. I will never forget her.

If you want to see what life was like in this country before entitlements, simply read or watch "Little House on the Prairie." When the Ingalls suffered through a tornado that destroyed the entire crop, and killed their cow, there was not one government program to apply for aid. It was the people of Walnut Grove that helped the Ingalls family. And that is what life was like in this country before entitlements. "People helping people" was more than than a slogan, it was a reality. Of course, to make things interesting, Walnut Grove had Mrs. Oleson, their resident capitalist. If redistribution of the wealth is evil, it seems the people of Walnut Grove were very evil. Because, to help the Ingals family, they, at times had to redistribute the wealth. And that is the way it was. People helping people by distributing to anyone who had need. And it was all done without some Government Control Program.

This country survived very well without Federal Entitlement/Government Control Programs for about 150 years.

That was then. What about now? For that part of this discussion, I will draw on personal experience. And I hope I do not lose any respect from those who hate Entitlements, because I hate them too. And I wouldn't be on any if I didn't have to be.

In 1977 I developed something in my left ring finger that was very painful. Bumping that finger felt like being hit by a sledge hammer. I had to really protect that finger or suffer excruciating pain every time I bumped it. It is really hard to work with your hands when you only have one hand that you can use. So, I went to see a doctor. He said I needed surgery. Well, I didn't have the money, neither did my family. So I went to the church I was a member of. The preacher told me to go to the government for help. I had no choice. About 15 hospitalizations later I am still on Government Control Programs. And that is what they are.

I hate it. Federal Entitlements have ripped the heart and soul out of the nation. My church telling me to go to the government for help is just plain wrong. But, that is a symptom of a greater problem. People don't help people anymore, not like they did. Why should they when the government does it? But these goverment programs are not about helping people, they are about government control.

Becuase of my situation, I understand both sides of the Entitlement issue.
The reason there are so many people on entitlement programs is because Government has created and atmosphere where they have to be. Overtaxation, overregulation, free trade agreements that do nothing but send jobs overseas, have all created this atmosphere. The economy is being destroyed by the Government, as a result, people are losing good paying jobs, being forced to to get jobs that do not pay as well, if they are fortunate enough to get a job at all. My conservative friends know these things to be true, but fail to see the connection between the government destruction of the economy and the need for people to collect from the government. It seems to me that everytime we have economic problems in this country we place blame on poor people, instead of blaming those that have created these economic problems in the first place, which is Congress. Congress has been whittling away at our economy and our freedom for at least the last 50 years, and it's time for that to change.

If we want to do something about Entitlements, we must first change the direction of our Government. Therefore, I propose we end all business taxes, end all OSHA regulations, create a minimum wage system that is based on the cost of living. No one should be denied a living wage. I further propose that we end our participation is job stealing treaties, such as NAFTA. I further propose that we once again collect tariffs. These steps would once again allow businesses to earn a decent profit, while at the same time hire American workers, and pay them a living wage.

In the 60s and early 70s, there were all kinds of factories. Shirt factories, undergarment factories, etc. But, today, even the "Great American Chocolate Bar" is made in Mexico. We need to bring those jobs back to America. When we do that, then we can do something about Entitlements.

I use to be a radio announcer, but because of national shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, etc., and radio stations being controlled by computers, or satallite hook up, people like me are no longer needed. So we can't just simply say we need to get rid of Entitlements. It would be inhumane to all of a sudden take people off Entitlements when they are dependent on them.

I hate what Entitlements have done to this country, and if we could just end them without hurting anyone, that would be great. But that is not reality.

By the way, I don't remember this country having a homeless problem before Entitlements. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks for your time.