Presdential Elections Are Not American Idol Contests

With the first Republican primary only weeks away, many people are complaining that candidates like Mitt Romney aren't just "exciting" enough: 

Talk to any Republican leaders or strategists and they will quickly point to the enthusiasm gap between their voters and President Obama’s as one reason they believe they will prevail next November. Listen to any Republican voters and a different enthusiasm gap appears. They are not truly excited about any of their likeliest nominees, least of all Mitt Romney.

The former Massachusetts governor is rapidly becoming a one-man political experiment, testing the theory that empathy and the ability to connect with voters are prerequisites for a winning campaign. He has many attributes, but firing up a Republican crowd isn’t one of them.

When it comes to selecting a person who will hold the most powerful office in the world, excitability should be on the bottom of the list of list qualities we want in a President. Yet, everyone, including conservatives, think that "excitability" should be top quality a candidate should posses. 

John Schroeder, in an article for Article IV blog, writes that the conservative desire for an exciting candidate is a serious problem for the GOP party and America:

There are a couple of troubling aspects to this trend.  Firstly, it seems to say that we are not impressed with ourselves.  We are the party of competence, not “sex appeal” – the grown-ups in the room.  When we go chasing stuff like this we seem to forget that fundamental aspect of what it means to be a conservative Republican.  There is no question that image and media matter in electoral politics, but it is up to us to shape them to our goals, not to be shaped by them.

Which brings me to the second and more troubling issue.  There simply is no greater evidence of where chasing image gets you than the current administration.  Incompetent and petulant on levels previously incomprehensible for the office of POTUS, we are witnessing a triumph of charisma over substance.  Charisma may help get you elected, but it is not worth the electrons it is transmitted by when it comes to actually governing. 

There is a huge difference between a candidate and a president. People seem to forget that being a candidate is not a job or a position. Yet, the Presidency is. 

A candidate is just a temporary label we use for someone who is seeking the office of President. Some candidates drop out of the race. Many don't get the job. Only a few men have been successful in becoming President of the United States. 

Its important to remember that there are skills and qualifications that may make a person an exciting candidate but they're not necessary for being a President. In fact, many of those skills are not in the job description for being a President.

It is a tough and very demanding job that requires a extremely high level of experience and competency.   Presidents have to make tough decisions on a wide variety of subjects, both domestic and foreign, such as the economy, national security, immigration and education. The President is also the Commander In Chief who oversees the armed forces.

Does America really want an exciting yet incompetent President? That’s what we got with Obama and look how that is going. Do we really want another four years of Obama as President? 

I want a candidate with experience and ideas, not a rock star politician. Yet, we're looking for the "American Idol" President. We’re a fickle society with a very short attention span. Look at current crop of conservative candidates. Bachmann, Perry and Cain were all flashes in the pan. They were the Republican flavor of the month. Newt is the current pick of these American idol conservatives.

Mitt Romney may be boring but he's extremely qualified for the job of President. He's not a rock star candidate. He's the serious and mature candidate America needs.

I don’t want the Republican party to nominate someone based on their rock star appeal and not on substance, ideas or positions. Yet, that is what the Republican party appears to have become. The only consistency that the American idol conservatives, also known as the Anybody But Romney crowd, is how quickly they betray and flip flop on the core issues and values they claim to cherish and hold dear.

I don't want an exciting President. If a president is boring, I'm ok with that just as long as he is extremely qualified and competent to be the President of the United States. 

America needs to grow up and take the election seriously by focusing on the candidate's resume rather how exciting he is.

Presidential elections are NOT American Idol contest. Lets not turn it into one.

The 53% of America Are Responding To The 99% Protesters

The Blaze had an article up that I want to repost in its entirety. Read it below: 

Meet The 53%. Who are they?  The term 53% refers to the people who are actually paying taxes for themselves and the rest of the country.

The 53% is a group of responsible young people organizing across the country. However, this group is not camping out in parks around the country and demanding the entire capitalist system be destroyed. These men and women have jobs (most of them work at more than one job in order to make ends meet), but they are talking about attending the Minneapolis Occupy Wall St. protest scheduled for today – Friday, October 7th.

Here’s a statement from their web page;

So, like, when you’re, like, community organizing for solidarity and stuff, it’s totally cool to have this little hashtaggy thingy when you’re on twitter, so other people, like, totally know what you’re talking about and stuff. So if you’re, like, totally gonna spread the word about being one of the 53% of people who actually, like, pay taxes in America and don’t just, like, hang out protesting stuff all day… like, here’s the hashtaggy thingy. See you at the protest!   #iamthe53

Filmmaker Mike Wilson (the man who gave us “Michael Moore Hates America“) maintains the page. We spoke with Wilson this morning and he explained that the 53% tumblr page came from his brain and the clever minds of his pals, Erick Erickson of Red State and Josh Trevino.

Reports out of Minneapolis say that a protest is expected today in front of the Government Plaza in downtown Minneapolis. The movement states they are going to try and reclaim and rename this area “The People’s Plaza.” Members of the 53% have mentioned that they will be in attendance to offer a counter opinion to the protest.

As we were talking, Wilson explained that he was loading up his camera and headed to the Minneapolis protest to capture it on video. The Blaze will link to Wilson’s coverage as it comes in.

Mike Wilson told us the group was in the very early stages of organizing, but it is happening online – mostly because they have jobs, families, and a sense of personal responsibility. And the 53% have responded to the people alleging to represent 99% of the country. Based on these photo messages, the 99% is patently wrong in their claim.

While the 99% protesters are angry at the 1% of Americans who have accumulated a lot of wealth through their own hard work, they forget about the 53% Americans (which includes the 1%) who pay taxes that pays for the government services that the 47% of Americans enjoy yet pay no taxes for. 

If there is any unfairness or inequality, its the fact that 47% feel that they have no obligation to pay taxes and feel that they are entitled to the benefits that the government provides that is paid for by the majority of people. 

What's worse is that they want more government services despite the fact that we can't afford it. And they want the 53% to pay more taxes to somehow cover up for the debt that is accumulating at the local, state and federal level. Not only that, but they want an increase in government control in every aspect of our lives and that the 53% happily accept the burden of more taxes in exchange for a reduction in our personal freedoms. 

The colonialist protested against England because they were getting taxed without having any voice in Parliament. Thus, the famous rallying cry, "no taxation without representation" helped launch the American Revolution. Yet, the "99% protesters" want representation without taxation. However, The 99% is really the 45% of America who do not pay taxes. Yet, they expect their demands to be heard and granted. 

This is unacceptable. It it is a perversion of the American way of governance.

The 53% expressed their anger and disgust in our government who have mismanaged the taxpayer's money to such an extent that we are massively in debt. That's what the TEA party was all about.

However, we need to make our voices heard again to remind the 45% that they do not represent America. Instead of occupying a plaza or park, lets liberate it this November 12th. 

Mitt Romney Doesn't Need To Pander To The Tea Party Movement

Mitt Romney has been accused of many things as a Presidential candidate. One accusation is that he likes to pander to different groups to win support. However, his presence at a small TEA Party Express rally in New Hampshire proved that Mitt Romney doesn't pander but stands by his beliefs: 

If former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in search of elusive tea party mojo, he didn’t find it here at a small Tea Party Express rally, where a few dozen conservatives sat in lawn chairs and argued about Romney’s conservative bona fides.

Romney made no attempt to out-tea-party his conservative rival Rick Perry, and, in fact, the words “tea party” didn’t cross his lips in a stump speech that ran less than 15 minutes.

“I thought he’d pander a bit more,” remarked Jerry DeLemus, a local tea party leader who’d appeared earlier at an anti-Romney event organized by the Washington group FreedomWorks — a group that split with the Tea Party Express over Romney’s appearance.

Listen to Mitt Romney's speech as Mitt Romney talked to the people gathered at the TEA Party Express meeting: 

As you listen to the speech, it should be no surprise that Mitt Romney would not pander to the TEA Party movement because he doesn't have to. He is someone who has been an strident advocate of conservative principles as a business man and later as a governor of Massachusetts. 

Mitt's record as governor of Massachusetts is a record that any TEA Party member can support. He cut taxes, balanced budgets and reduced regulation. He did all of this in a liberal state with democratic majority legislature. 

As Election Day grows closer and closer, we need a candidate who was able to get conservative ideas and principles through a friendly or unfriendly legislature while getting the economy back on track. That is why America needs Mitt Romney in 2012. 

Jim DeMint Tells The Tea Party To Not Lose Focus

Recently, Jim DeMint wondered aloud about the where the TEA party was heading: 

"What's up with the Tea Party right now?" asked Heritage President Ed Feulner near the end of the meeting. "We're not hearing much right now."

"I really don't know," DeMint said. "As I move around, people are telling me they're out there and they're engaged, but since the election they have not had as much of a focus."

DeMint also told people not to endorse candidates early in the 2012 election: 

In the meantime, he said, he's warning fellow conservatives to keep their mouths shut when it comes to making endorsements this early in the game.

"I think we're going to have a good field," DeMint said. "I'm encouraging people...not to endorse early. One of the things I found out last time is as soon as you endorse the candidates, they stop listening and go on to endorse somebody else. The longer we all hold out as conservatives the better chance we have of uniting behind a candidate to make sure our nominee reflects the heart and soul of our party."

I hate to brag, but I saw this problem coming a long time ago. In April of 2010, I wrote an article warning the tea party not to get involved in endorsing candidates running for office. Seven months later, in November of 2010,  I wrote another article about how the TEA party "leaders" were betraying the movement by claiming to be voice of millions of people who poured out into the streets in anger at how our government was mismanaging our tax payer money when there was never supposed to be leaders in the movement. 

There fact that the TEA party is losing its focus is directly related to the misguided attempt to become a kingmaker in the upcoming Presidential election. The TEA party is losing its focus because they're more concerned with elections and campaigns rather than issues. Many TEA party organizations are trying to get candidates to sign pledges, or endorsing one conservative candidate over another while attacking other conservative candidates. And the TEA party will lose its way if it keeps doing this during the 2012 Presidential elections.

Which is why I'm hesitant about Jim DeMint hosting a TEA party sponsored Presidential debate. I'm not sure how I feel about it since some are advertising this event as a way to break the mainstream media's control over the presidential debate and actually asking serious questions to the candidates. I'll hold my judgment for now.

However, not everyone in the TEA party movement is losing their focus. Some people are doing right things by  focusing on issues like the Balanced Budget Amendment, whether or not we should raise the debt ceiling, opposing increases in taxes and opposing ObamaCare. 

If the TEA party wants to continue to be relevant beyond 2012, it needs to stick strictly with its message of financial accountability and responsibility in government. By focusing on these issues, it will get the candidates they want in office because candidates will not only have to work on getting their vote but remain viligant in wisely managing our tax payer money. If they don't, they know they will face the wrath of the TEA party in the next election. 

However, if the TEA party focuses on providing endorsements for candidates and becoming a vehicle to attack other candidates, then they will get the candidate they want but they will do it at the cost of diluting their movement's power. Moreover, they will be less vigilant in keeping the country financially secure and more focused on playing kingmaker. By seeking to become king makers, they will become like other special interests groups that politicians pander to. Once the average and everyday Americans see that that what the TEA party has become, they will leave the movement.  At some point, the movement will fade away because it will have lost its focus. 

I don't want the TEA party to lose focus and fade away. This movement has been the best thing that has happened to conservatism, the Republican party and for America. I hope it remains that way for a long time.

How TEA Party "Leaders" Are Betrarying The TEA Party

Recently, a Utah Tea Party leader and a national Tea party leader have spoken out against Mitt Romney for various positions that he has taken. Having TEA party leaders giving or withholding endorsements troubles me. This isn't a new concern of mine. I've expressed my concern on this issue in a previous article.

I have some new additional concerns that I did not express in the earlier article. Lured by the temptation of political power, these leaders are betraying the very principles of what made the TEA Party so successful  and powerful in the first place.

One of the most popular books among the Tea Party movement is "The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations" in which the book argues that leaderless organizations are more effective than governments and corporations in making positive changes to society. Politico explains why the book was a political bestseller in 2009:

"The book was first published in 2006 — three years before the tea party movement burst onto the scene with mass protests against what it regarded as President Barack Obama’s unchecked expansion of government. But the idea that scrappy starfish groups can beat imposing spider institutions resonates deeply with tea partiers, who have vigilantly enforced their occasionally chaotic structure against would-be leaders, an eager GOP, and conventional Washington wisdom questioning whether an infrastructureless group can succeed in Big Money electoral politics."

By having people who are claiming to be "official" representatives of the Tea Party movement, they are transforming and diluting the movement that made it so effective. The power behind this group is that it was a leaderless grassroots movement in which like minded people who were outraged about the growing size and scope of the federal government as well as the financial irresponsibility that came along with increasingly expansive government. Nobody was elected to the the official spokesperson. And there was never an intent to have spokesperson for the group. And while some of these groups and many individuals have had a positive overall effect, they do NOT represent the movement. But by becoming an organized political organization, the voices of millions of people will be ignored because its much easier to get a single representative on television rather than talk to a wide variety of people to get their feelings on a particular issue.   

You would think that Mitt Romney possesses the qualities TEA partiers dream of in their 2012 candidate. Braden at BlogCritics.org: Dear Tea Party, Mitt Romney is Your Friend explains why this is: 

"Based on issues alone, it would be logical to conclude that Mitt Romney is in agreement with the vast majority of Tea Party principles. He balanced the budget for four consecutive years in a blue state without raising taxes. Isn't that what the TEA in Tea Party stands for, Taxed Enough Already? The very premise of the Tea Party movement is in accordance with Romney's record.

But what about RomneyCare? RomneyCare, signed into law by Romney in 2006, is a state-based healthcare plan with striking similarities to ObamaCare. However, unlike ObamaCare, RomneyCare did not raise taxes. But the bigger and more important difference is that RomneyCare was a state program and not a federal one. If states' rights and federalism are truly important to the Tea Party, they would readily recognize this distinction. And on top of all this, Romney has consistently voiced his support for the repeal of ObamaCare."

Braden doesn't make the point explicitly, but essentially what he's saying is that there is a growing inconsistency between what the TEA party movement stands for and what they're willing to support. There are many within the movement who claim fidelity to the Constitution, federalism, the 10th Amendment, and the will of “The People” but only when it suits them. Thus, the comments from the local and national TEA party "leaders" is nothing more than them cherry picking conservative ideas they want support and don't support.

RomneyCare is 100% a state rights issue. Mitt Romney proposed a health care plan that would apply  Massachusetts and only to Massachusetts. Moreover, the people of Mass overwhelmingly supported RomneyCare then and they support it now. 

Braden thinks that reason behind opposition to Mitt Romney within certain ranks of the TEA party movement is based on irrational fear. I think its based on irrational anger. The American people have every right to be upset with Obama instituting his health care plan despite overwhelming opposition to it. However, what is bizzare is their anger towards Mitt Romney.

Here's why I find the anger towards RomneyCare so irrational. After the conservative wave of in the Congressional elections of1994, Bill Clinton decided to boost his popularity by stealing a conservative idea: welfare reform. Conservatives had twice attempted to pass welfare reform but he vetoed them. However, Clinton got Congress to pass the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, also known as the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. Not only did he steal the idea but his plan was conservative to the core. He is still proud of signing the law. 

I don't recall conservatives getting mad at Newt Gingrich for partnering with Bill Clinton on reforming welfare. In fact, it was liberals and progressives who were mad at Clinton for signing a conservative piece of legislation. Even three members in the Clinton Administration were so angry at Bill that they resigned after the law was passed. Why were they so upset with Bill Clinton? They were not upset with the conservatives who were successful on their third attempt to reform welfare based on conservative principles but they were upset with him because he abandoned liberalism and progressive ideas when he signed the law.

In contrast, what Obama did was to take a conservative idea, corrupt it by changing the conservative idea into a progressive one, and foisted it on the America people. Liberals and progressives are happy with Obama. Its no mystery why Conservatives are unhappy with Obama. 

But they're also unhappy with Mitt Romney. That is a mystery to me. Unlike Bill Clinton who abandoned his party's beliefs and principles in signing the conservative welfare reform into law, Mitt Romney didn't abandon or betray any conservative principles when he created RomneyCare. Mitt got his idea for state wide individual mandates from the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation and simply integrated that idea into his health care plan. After all, the idea for individual mandates was alternative proposal to HilliaryCare during the Clinton Administration.

Thus, the only explanation I can think of is that they're angry for Romney simply because Obama used and corrupted Romney's plan. Now that Obama corrupted the conservative idea of individual mandates, many conservatives who were once for it are now against it. If Obama hadn't perverted the conservative idea of individual mandates, many conservatives would have been supportive of RomneyCare. And that, to me, is irrational anger towards the former governor of Massachusetts.

The truth is that if Obama hadn't used Romney's plan but looked around and used another conservative governor's plan, many would be pissed with that governor. In fact, Obama would have created ObamaCare without or without using Romney or any other conservative health care reform plan. He could have attempted to pass a similar version of HillaryCare. I  contend that Obama simply claimed that he used RomneyCare as a template knowing how toxic his health care plan was to the American people just as a political tactic to hobble a potential 2012 candidate who could be his challenger in the general election. 

In the end, conservatives, independents and tea partiers should not be angry with Mitt Romney at all. When it comes to health care reform, Mitt has consistently stood for conservative principles. He hasn't abandoned or betrayed those ideas at all. Instead, conservatives, independents and tea partiers should be angry at those who claim to lead and speak for the TEA party because they are the ones who are abandoning, diluting and twisting everything that the TEA party stands for as they express their opposition to Mitt Romney. 

I'm not saying people shouldn't criticize or opposes Mitt Romney. People are free to do so. All I'm pointing out is the inconsistency in the so called "leaders" of the TEA Party which ultimately betrays the purpose, beliefs and goals of the TEA party movement. 

What Is The Future of The T.E.A. Party Movement?

A lot of attention has been given to the T.E.A. party recently in the media as a result of the current debate over health care reform, the 2010 midterm elections and the influence this group has on politics today as well as in the future.

Who Are The T.E.A. Partiers? 

One would think that this group of people are easy to understand. People are angry with our government because it is creating debt at an unprecedented rate while ushering in a new era of unprecedented government expansion into the daily lives of Americans. And who is financing all of this? The American taxpayer. And who will be forced to suffer the consequences of the poor decisions made by our elected representatives? The American taxpayer.

Yet, despite all the media coverage about the T.E.A party movement, it is still an enigma to members of the general public. As CNN points out, "the Tea Party movement, now in its 14th month, is not well-known to nearly half the country. Forty five percent of all Americans say they do not know enough about the Tea Party to say whether they support it or oppose it. Those who are familiar with the movement are divided right down the middle - 27 percent support the Tea Party movement, and 27 percent oppose it." (Source.)

This movement, is only in its infancy. But its growing:

"the number of people who say they’re part of the Tea Party Movement nationally has grown to 24%. That’s up from 16% a month ago, but the movement still defies easy description."(Source.)

Facts About The T.E.A. Partiers 

The most important and easiest thing to understand is that pols show that the T.E.A. party movement is not some fringe group but made up of Americans of all walks of life:

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal. (Source.) 

The Winston Group found, in three national surveys conducted from December through February and published April 1, that the Tea Party movement is composed of a broad cross-section of the American people -- 40 to 50 percent of its supporters are non-Republicans. Indeed, one-third of self-identified Democrats say they support the Tea Party movement.(Source.)

Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement. (Source.)

Getting Involved In Politics Is Not A Wise Idea

Given that this movement is growing, what should the T.E.A. Party be doing right now?

First let us discuss what they should not be doing. 

Some people believe that this movement might form into an alternative third political party. It is not a political party. And neither should it form into one. Those who leave the two major parties are relegating themselves to political irrelevance. Ross Perot's Reform Party and  Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party have faded into political obscurity. 

Neither should the T.E.A Party be endorsing those who wish to get into political office. Politicians who rely only on the support of the Tea Party movement have yet to win an election. Debra Medina, Patrick Hughes, Adam Andrzejewski, Doug Hoffman, Larry Naritelli, and J.D. Hayworth are all T.E.A Party favorites who are or will fizzle into the footnotes of political history.

If this political movement cannot and should not be in the business of forming a political party or actively supporting candidates for political office, what should the T.E.A movement do? 

Trust And Credibility 

In order to answer that question, consider that a recent poll shows that the T.E.A. party has more credibility with the American party than politicians in Congress:  

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.

When it comes to those issues, 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress.

Finally, 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical.

(Source.)

I don't think the T.E.A party realizes the significance of what this means. It means that Americans are staring to trust one another. They are looking to their friends, neighbors, co-workers and fellow church goers for answers to the challenges of this country. They are starting to realize that they can no longer look to the federal or state government for answers. That is why the T.E.A. party movement is growing and getting more stronger everyday. That is why the general public is starting to believe this movement rather than the government when it comes to solving the financial issues that face our country.

Trust is the one thing that that the media, politicians and our public education system do not have.

This is what the founding fathers wanted. They set up a government whereby people were free to rely on one another and not to rely on the government. They wanted citizens to be the ones on the watchtower to warn of threats to our freedoms. They wanted Americans to teach each other about the Constitution and what our country is all about.

If we simply protest just to change the laws, endorse political candidates or form a third party, such actions will only bring a temporary halt to the growth of government. No meaningful or lasting change will come from it.

To make a permanent change in America and restore this country to what it was created to be, we need to change the hearts, mind and soul of every person in the United States. When that happens, society changes. And when society changes, the government is transformed because it will reflect the heart, mind and soul of the citizens.

Thus, the T.E.A. parties should just be doing what it is doing now. Organizing. Protesting. And most importantly, educating. 

When and Where Will The Buck Stop?

America has always been a nation in debt. Shortly after the birth of our nation, our country went into debt and continued as political leaders came and left Washington D.C. President Truman once claimed that the “buck stops here” but like other politicians, he just passed the buck to the next successor coming into our nation’s capital.

America has always been a nation in debt. Shortly after the birth of our nation, our country went into debt and continued as political leaders came and left Washington D.C. President Truman once claimed that the “buck stops here” but like other politicians, he just passed the buck to the next successor coming into our nation’s capital.

As politicians passed the buck to the next generation, the national debt steadily grew. Politicians, both past and present, are infected with the false belief that they can wash their hands of responsibility for paying down the deficit and that some future generation will take up the mantle of eliminating our country’s debt.

Politicians, regardless of political party, have recklessly allowed the federal deficit get out of control. Neither party has, nor currently, been able to say no to spending beyond what our nation can afford. Consider this, in 1980, the year I was born, the US National Debt was approximately 900 Billion dollars. Today, as we speak, the US National Debt is over 11 Trillion Dollars.

The heavy mantle of paying off the debt falls on the shoulderS of every young adult in this country. They are passing the debt to my generation, and subsequent generations that are after us. The national debt is equivalent to having every man, woman and child in the country saddled with $35,000 in debt and we are piling on more debt. Let’s not forget that American individuals are also drowning in their own consumer debt as well. The American Dream is being taken away from us by irresponsible adults.

As a young adult who is about to leave higher education and enter the workplace, I have a burning question for the political leaders of our nation: will you continue to spend away our American Dream or will the buck stop with you?

I fully support the outrage over the bailout money irresponsible corporations have been given by equally irresponsible politicians. America has a history of bailing out failing airline companies, incompetent car companies, greedy savings and loan associations, and now irresponsible financial institutions. When will politicians end the practice of giving the buck to incompetent business leaders and corrupt corporations? This practice needs to stop and it needs to end today.

When we talk about the consequences of passing the buck of financial stewardship over our nation’s finances to the next flock of politicians who enter the halls of government, we’re not talking about dollars and cents. The discussion was, and never is, about money -- nor is it about taxes, reckless spending, deep deficits and gigantic bailouts. Such discussions are just a way to help us visualize what we’re really talking about, which is Rights and Freedoms.

We have learned from the sad history of nations across this planet that a government once stretched by the increase of power, never regains its original dimensions. As the government grows in size and power, it expands at the expense of the rights and freedoms of its citizens. We know that a decrease in the rights and freedoms of its citizens is a direct result of an increase in acts of oppression and abuse by the government.

We have also learned from history that when a country spends beyond its means, such as providing massive bailouts, there will be a corresponding loss of freedoms. A nation that runs on debt ensures that it will not remain free and strong forever. A state that is burdened by debt will be powerless in guaranteeing rights or preventing the loss of freedoms that were once enjoyed by the public. Likewise, the people will not have the ability to exercise their rights and freedoms because they will not have the financial ability to do so. A government that is not economically free, will abuse the citizens and rob them of whatever rights are remaining.

Despite its weaknesses and flaws, one the best protectors of individual liberty and freedom, and strongest defenses against the abuse of government power, is capitalism. When an individual is able to earn, keep and spend his wages, they are in the best position to meet his or her needs and wants, to pursue their desired careers, to support institutions that reflect their values and beliefs, to improve the community they live in, help the downtrodden or oppressed, enjoy the environment, and pursue their dreams.

Capitalism never was meant to operate only by an invisible hand. Government has the responsibility to ensure that corporations conduct honest transactions with the public and that they do not abuse their powers gained through the income from its consumers. It is to ensure that the market place operates freely, fairly and openly for all. Government should not meddle in the affairs of the free market by dictating who can get fired, how much a person’s wage should be and whether or not a business or employment contract should be honored. The government is only to be a referee to put bad corporations permanently in the penalty box and leave the good corporations to participate in the free market.

Any government that has the absolute authority to determine the flow of commerce will not be content with just having dominion over the economic sphere of the nation. It will also seek to dictate the political, social, religious, and cultural affairs of the nation. When the government has greater power than the people, inequality occurs because it is typically just the ruling class and everybody else. As a result, oppression and abuse at the hand of government occur with greater frequency and the light of individual liberty will grow dim.

We are at a unique moment in American history. We can either preserve our freedom or let it slip away from us. We choose to either avoid or face the consequences of financial irresponsibility.

To anyone even considering running for office or any politician seeking reelection: I don’t want to hear any promises other than that they will get us out of debt and stop the reckless spending of our tax dollars.

We the People, young and old, male and female, rich and poor, republican and democrat, believers or disbelievers in God, are united today in protest against the financial irresponsibility of our leaders. Prosperity is not a guarantee -- it is a challenge that must be earned every generation. But because the politicians have refused to let the buck stop with them, the buck stops with us. It stops with my generation. TODAY.

UPDATE: You can watch the speech on YouTube: