Character is the nature of who you are and how you develop it is through the millions of choices you will make throughout your lifetime.

Integrity is a reflection of character. Through these millions of choices what emerges is the observation of self and from others that your choices are made without pre-judgment and upholding of freedom, free choice, self-reliance, and self-governance.

Republicans are masters of self-evaluation toward self-correction; this is a great thing.   Democrats are almost incapable of such. This is an advantage.

Republicans being open to the idea that no subject or situation is ever resolved to an extent that it cannot be revisited at a later date, is a brilliant approach.   Democrats love to live in self-righteousness. They start from a position of being “right” and therefore every opposition is simply because you’re inept, stupid, ill-equipped to understand, sub-standard, bigoted, racist, misogynistic, dumb, and astro turf.

From this position, Democrats stand on the unbalanced beam of self-righteousness, use “social justice” as credential, then manipulate with language to convince those who want to be manipulated.

The question before Republicans: do you want to be manipulated?

Every candidate who jumps into a race from this point forward needs to assimilate freedom, free choice, the development of personal responsibility, speak to limited government and safety of this nation. If he, or she, cannot, then reconsider your vote for that individual.

Sob stories or stories to tug at your heart strings; fear mongering of our “fate as a nation” is nothing more than manipulation. 

If a candidate truly upholds freedom and all the precepts that follow, then all such concerns would naturally resolve themselves. Your children need not worry about their future if they’re living in freedom. 

To state, “I have concern for our future where a life of freedom is no longer” speaks to everyone, irrespective of any hyphenated label they wish apply to themselves.   It’s universal.

Don’t let politicians get away with this manipulation. Call them out on it. Don’t let politicians use your family, children, elderly, husbands, wives, military or anyone else to extort your vote.

If a candidate is or was a small business owner, great, speak to that with respect to understanding a FREE market system where choice, competition, obligation to personal responsibility and consent are paramount.

If a candidate understands the scientific method (and he should!) then let him speak to how he understands what it means when politicians try and thrust junk science on us strictly for political and financial gain.

Sympathy, empathy, personal experience: these are not synonyms for legislation.

Freedom is a reason for legislation.

Individual choice is a reason for legislation.

Unleashing markets from the chains of regulation is about freedom which is a reason for legislation.

Getting government out of everything is a reason for legislation because it’s about freedom.

You get the picture here? I know you do. Now our candidates and politicians need to.

They will tell you that only 30,000 people out of 670,000 people in a district actually voted; that they need to “negotiate” for votes (this is euphemism for granting favors for votes). My question to them: what is your message that isn’t getting through to the other 670,000 voters?  Why can’t you motivate them?

If you ignore a larger piece of the pie for the minority, isn’t that what liberals do? They want to manipulate the larger group for favor of a minority group?

Are you so attached to an outcome that it blinds you to the simple message for freedom, free choice, independence, self-reliance, and self-governance? 

We know all candidates want to win – that’s a “duh” moment. However, a candidate who is attached to the outcome has a personal agenda that isn’t about freedom and advancing freedom for his fellow Americans.   If your motivations are anything other than freedom, you’re a fraud.   Out of freedom is the byproduct of every personal concern that EVERY AMERICAN has to live free.

And while we’re on the subject of integrity, don’t fall for the “with all due respect” line. If an individual is developing integrity through character & personal choices, that person would naturally have self-respect. As a result, it wouldn’t occur to him to speak about others in ways that were “disrespectful”. There’s a difference between speaking to reality and coddling the feelings of others.  

If it’s not in your nature to have self-respect, then you may want to self-evaluate whether or not you should open your mouth to begin with. 

Growing up, my mom always liked to tell us, “It is wiser to remain silent and thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt”. She read it somewhere and never missed an opportunity to utilize it. 

I miss that woman. J

What is limited government?

Does government being limited mean that only your personal agenda is supported and enforced?

Or does it mean that government is limited to managing the safety of our nation, upholding contracts between parties, enforcing the unbridled dissemination of information to Americans in order to advance and encourage personal responsibility and little else?

If Republicans REALLY uphold limited government, then that limit has to extend even to the strongest of "social issues" that affect them.

Here's why: limited government means government out of all these issues so that free markets, creative and innovative solutions can spring forth where communities can address a list of priorities rather than government becoming the nanny for your specific concern.  

Using government to advance your personal agenda is not limiting government, but expanding it.  Get government out of it all and we will all put our collective heads together and come up with some great ideas that government will NEVER come up with.

If Republicans want to stand for limited government, personal responsibility and safety of the nation they'll find a whole lot more people voting (R).

It doesn't mean anyone is telling you to give up your principles in life, to the contrary.  

It means getting government out of favoring your principles over another American's principles. It means government staying neutral in all issues of a subjective nature. And isn't that what this pluralistic nation is really all about - acknowledge the freedom of all while favoring none?

If the focus is on the idea that you live your life at no cost to another without his consent, then laws will be enacted which will give consequence to the man who makes the choice in antithesis.

Life is subjective – in the eye of the beholder. How could we possibly think government could favor and enforce every American’s version of how life should be lived?

It can’t and freedom compels that it doesn’t.   Government need only uphold our Constitution and Americans will figure out the rest.

In all of life we do one of two things: we move toward something or we move away from it.

Every time you want or demand that a personal social issue of concern be managed or forced by government, you’ve moved away from freedom and into the hands of control.

If Republicans, along the spectrum, really uphold free markets, then they should have confidence that they can manage their principles and social issues of concern without government interference; that they will create innovative solutions toward their goals.

If Republicans stand by the integrity and character of limited government, personal responsibility (which includes, of course, fiscal, as well) and safety of this nation – they will find an overwhelming number of Americans over time joining the cause for freedom.

Recently on Glenn Beck’s program he made another ownership statement regarding where our rights come from. His argument is that liberals say there is no god which then leaves the issue of rights coming from government and not god.

This issue continues to be a source of contention to people who want ownership; having ownership then invokes control. How do we know that? Because in America we want our Constitution to uphold our ownership of property so that we can control how we manage it, what we do to it, and how we live in it – our comfort and security.

The same can be said about the ownership of self. We want our Constitution to uphold the ownership of self so that we don’t have government telling us what health care to buy, what food to eat, what exercise to participate in, what school to attend, et.al.

A “Right” is intrinsic – it exists within you and cannot be taken away from you – your thoughts, your faith, your speech. Only through government can your rights be limited, but even then, in the privacy of your mind you can say anything you want, think anything you want, pray to whoever you want and government cannot stop you.

What difference does it make where our rights come from?

Some say their deity, others just say nature itself.

If you personally believe your rights come from your specific deity, who would infringe on your freedom to believe such.

If you personally believe your rights come from nature, who would infringe on your freedom to believe such.

The only reason a person demands that others believe as he believes, is to control.

We complain about government trying to control us, yet we engage in similar behavior when we attempt to own something that does not belong to us – an individual’s rights; the individual’s conscious mind to decide for self.

The only rights we need care about are individual rights by which a person can make his way in this world without government interference.

The only laws we need care about are the ones this nation creates which protect self and society from those who would infringe on the freedom of someone trying to make his way in this world.

We don’t have a right to comfort just because we have distaste for someone’s choices.

Live your life at no cost to others without their consent. If they didn’t consent, don’t make the choice.

If you insist that rights only come from your deity; that laws are only from your deity and demand others be in abeyance to such, then you have abandoned the birth of our nation in freedom.

You’ve abandoned freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self in understanding that, “we hold these truths to be self-evident”.

Consider two very important pieces of observation: the Declaration speaks only to the terminology of “Creator” – a term that is universal for each individual conscious mind to decide for self.

Second, since the Declaration of Independence isn’t our rule of law, but the Constitution is, even upon the addition of the Bill of Rights, it never invoked the word God, gave no reference to, and placed no subjective ideology above any other within its writings. Freedom of religion to decide for self. Not that the nation would not necessarily have its citizens enjoying their personal religions, but the freedom to choose that religion if desired.

If, as some would like to project our founders “intentions” were of religion, would we not have advanced our understanding of individual freedom at this given time, to realize, as we did with slavery, suffrage, and other issues, that each must have the freedom to decide for self irrespective of government. That each must have ownership of self to decide. That each must respect the inherent right of another to decide for self.

Government cannot be involved in religion as it cannot be involved in anything where an individual must decide for self. Otherwise it’s nothing but another form of control. Government makes a mess of everything it tries to control no matter what the intention.

Limited government, personal responsibility, safety of our nation – these are issues which unite us all.

How a person acquires his integrity and character is of no concern to me or you, only that he does.

If each developed personal responsibility toward owning his choices, only makes choices for which he has the ability to respond, then only makes those choices at a cost to no one else except those who consent, the byproduct is integrity and character through the upholding of freedom, to self and others.

If you want government involved in social issues, consider why that is?  What personal agenda are you attempting to thrust onto society for your comfort?

Free Market solutions can manage social issues which concern all of us, while upholding individual freedom. 

Asking government to be involved in social issues is asking for favor and entitlement; social issues are not the role of government.

Milton Friedman once said that the only reason we have as much freedom as we do now is because of the inefficiency of government.

If you think government should or will solve social issues, you're a RINO - you are motivated by personal agenda at a cost of individual freedoms to others.  Society doesn't exist for you or I. 

Personal comfort is not a right. 

Sympathy, empathy, personal experiences are not synonyms for legislation.

Demonizing the ACLU to further your personal agenda brings no credibility.

You mean this ACLU:

2004: trial regarding allegations of Rush Limbaugh's drug abuse, the ACLU argued that his privacy should not have been compromised by allowing law enforcement examination of his medical records

1997: Internet Free Speech in ACLU v. Reno, the court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which censored the Internet by banning "indecent" speech.  Although this was a major First Amendment victory for the information age, the battle continues; the ACLU often finds itself defending online free speech from further assault.  (one reason we have the ability to speak openly on blogs)

1986: The ACLU also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony — a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.

In 1973: the ACLU was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, giving as reasons the Nixon administration's violations of civil liberties. 

In 1967: the ACLU successfully argued against state bans on interracial marriage, in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

1954: Brown v. Board of Education: the ACLU, having long supported the legal battle for equal education, celebrated a majority victory when the Supreme Court declared that racially segregated schools were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in a case brought by the NAACP

The favor and entitlement ADF screams about the ACLU doing, is exactly what ADF is doing: seeking favor from legislators or the courts to support their personal specific view of life, what choices a person should make and how to live life, even to the assumption of existence – they believe and you best, too!  What happened to the founders idea of freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self?

Crosses on mountains that are on government property utilizing pluralistic tax dollars does not limit government, it expands its reach and favors one religious view over another.  Private property, no problem, no one cares.  Government property – it’s gotta go.  Society doesn’t exist for you!

Just because we haven’t developed past certain discriminations, doesn’t mean the courts aren’t accurately reversing some of the bullying that has gone on with regard to the upholding personal freedom. 

Slavery, suffrage, interracial marriage, discrimination – any of these sound familiar, all “traditions” at one time in our society, all tolerated by society, some even using the bible as credential to continue or further it.

Finally, the speaker had the Obama-audacity to say that government has interest in the family propagating to help pay taxes and fund our society.   How absurd!  This is antithetical to freedom, free choice, free markets and limited government.  Not to mention bigoted – there are lots of variants when it comes to creating families through a variety of methods. This myopic view of life is breathtaking.

Society existed long before any government came upon it to tax it and spend like thieves. If government “cannot run its household on the liberal allowance it receives” from the current tax payers then it is the legislators responsibility to live within their means and cut spending.

The ONLY reason a person would make such a declaration is to impose a subjective and ideological view of the world upon everyone else – just like liberal democrats.  

In so much as your personal choice does not infringe on a personal choice of another without consent – without contract – without agreement, it’s not the governments business, nor mine, nor yours. In free markets we call this: choice.  

If you are asking courts and legislators to favor your religion, your definition of marriage, or any other social agenda for which you disagree about the free choice of another American, you live in hypocrisy toward freedom itself.  

No one should be listening to or be lectured by an organization that seeks its own personal agenda antithetical to freedom of the individual all the while demonizing the ACLU or any other organization.

Both organizations need to clean up their acts. 

The Alliance Defense Fund can start that self-evaluation leading to self-correction (long before the ACLU ever will) by seeking to get government out of our lives, out of marriage, out of religion, out of education, out of abortion, out of health care and all other social issues where government has no business.  Do that and it takes away the weapon of hypocrisy that liberals easily wield at Republicans.   Unless, of course, demanding favor for subjective ideology, overstepping the Constitution and insisting others believe as they believe, is their goal

With this kind of thinking, Conservatives are fast becoming liberals with religion – and guess what? People are onto the scam. 

Limited government, personal & fiscal responsibility, safety of the nation – no one can argue these foundations who does not reveal himself anti-American. 

If the ADF wants to fight battles, then fight the battle for equality of freedom by getting government out of it all so that free people can make free choices and stop looking for endorsements from government.