the first conservative

Digging back in my head looking for who I would nominate the first conservative. 

            Crowned queen amid uncertainty.  Her country was broke but at the end of her reign the country was rich and the best credit risk in Europe due to her conservative monetary policies.  The country was defenseless when she ascended the throne, having had years of neglect of both army and navy.  When she left it was supreme on the seas.  Reformed her church, quelled religious strife, leaving a legacy of doctrine. 

            And thus they call her Elizabeth the Great.  Only by the grace of God did she become queen.  Her Grandfather Henry VII was a wily character who married his sons and daughters to gain political alliances.  He married son#1, Arthur, to Katherine of Aargon, hopeful to cement a Spain-England alliance.  (Yes, there really was to be a king-to-be Arthur.)  But Art died young before assuming the throne.  Henry VII, to keep the alliance going, arranged for son#2, Henry, to marry Katherine.  It was a horrid marriage.  Energetic HenryVIII wanted a son as heir and Katherine could only give him a daughter, Mary Tudor.  In 1533, Hank defied the pope and had his own Archbishop of Canterbury annul the  marriage.  He married Ann Bolin, who tried hard to have a son, but only got miscarriages and a little red-haired girl.  Henry accused Ann of infidelity and had her beheaded.  He married third time, Jane Seymour, then a 4^th, 5^th and 6^th time and got a son Edward.    Henry went mad from syphilis he had contracted along the way and died in 1547.  Edward became king.  The two girls had been declared bastards by a complicit Parliament.  But Edward was very, very young and died seven years later. Now who was to be queen-- Mary Tudor or Mary Stuart, who was Queen of Scotland and a cousin? 

            The people were largely Catholic, having been born Catholic, but under Henry, the church was like Catholicism without a pope—the King was declared head of the church in England, hence making it Protestant in name.  Mary Stuart would have been the choice of the majority, but Parliament was Protestant.  When Hank had taken over church lands, he handed them out to supporters who fretted that if Catholicism were re-established in England, they would lose lands and maybe their heads.  Mary Tudor was the chosen as a defender of royal rights over the church but she was also Catholic. “Bloody Mary” became embroiled in theology and began to severely persecute Protestants, putting many to death. But 5 years later she was dead, ironically the victim of a severe feminine disorder misdiagnosed as pregnancy.  Bloody Mary hemorrhaged to death.  Even more ironically, 4 years before, Elizabeth was implicated in a plot of overthrow Mary and was awaiting execution in the Tower, when suddenly Mary had a most unusual change of heart and pardoned her. 

            So in 1558 as Elizabeth’s coronation parade went past the Tower, she saw herself as queen by grace alone.  She was hanging by a thread.  The defenses of England had been neglected for 12 years and the British Isles were ripe for foreign takeover. France had 4 times as many people and strong ties to Scotland.   The currency was rotten, Interest was 14%, the government ran off crown lands (no income taxes then) and they had been mismanaged terribly.  Catholics and Protestants looked to be on the brink of war.  Pauperism was rampant.  England was known for its backwardness, though occupied Ireland, with almost no roads was worse.  But every experience that Elizabeth had encountered had made her survival instincts strong.  Only a strong absolute monarch (it was thought) could provide peace.  Nobody expected to find the heart of an emperor behind the smiles of a 25-year-old girl. 

            She honored her brother and father’s debts.  She appointed commoners, had them knighted. They had particular management skill for the crown lands.  William Cecil had particular genius for wise and conservative policy.  Elizabeth was not given to rapid decisions, but she had the brains, like Ronald Reagan to wait out the consequences and trusted her strong advisors.  Low taxes(fees), flourishing trade, domestic order and peace were her unwaivering goals.  As a diplomat Elizabeth was without peer. 

            She spent practically nothing, except for her gowns.  Realizing that if she could advertize herself as marriageable, she would hold off the suitors and could play them against one another.  And so she held a court as if it was one continuous party.  A mask followed by a ball followed by another mask.  The arts flourished with Shakespeare and hundreds of others.  Ambassadors came with proposals from their kings.  What a prize! A beautiful young girl comes with the dowry of the British Isles!  She ate like a bird, had a fetish to stay youthful, danced like a troubadour, rode horses like the men, and traveled the country from village to village lavishing toasts and kind words on the local barons.  Soon all England loved her—or at least loved the low taxes and flourishing trade.  She was a Protestant but left constant hints about not straying far from Catholicism tempting the Catholic Princes of Europe with designs to bring England back to the fold.  “If she were not a heretic,” said Pope Sixtus V, “she would be worth the whole world.” 

            Virginity was her secret weapon, and modern historians speculate without much proof that she had trysts, or was gay or hemophroditic.  Philip II the great potentate of Catholic Christendom and the Hapsburg dynasty asked her hand in marriage in 1559 but she rejected this device for making England a Catholic dependency of Spain.  Elizabeth was married to England.

            She could cuss like a boar hunter (and did both) and once she had made a decision she was the Iron Lady like Thatcher.  When in danger she was all courage and intelligence.  She spoke French, Italian, Spanish, Latin and Greek--speaking directly to foreign envoys without translater. 

            In all governments before 1789, it was taken for granted that some religion was necessary for social order.  Elizabeth liked the Catholic ceremony, had not so much committal to a life of faith,  but Luther’s grace was her issue.  England was Catholic without the pope since Henry VIII.  Protestant refugees from all over Europe had fled to London and brought Calvinism and other versions.  So typically politician, she arranged a Convocation in 1563 for the Protestants who then hammered out 39 Articles.  The new Anglican faith was Lutheran in most doctrine but Reformed in the Eucharist.  Ritual remained almost Catholic.  Masses, Catholicism were abolished and all Brits were to attend church regularly or pay a fine.   Now it was the turn of Catholics to suffer persecution.  Governments of the time considered that theological dissent was a form or political revolt and so about 60 Catholics were executed and a couple hundred imprisoned for their dissent.  This was nothing compared to the other nations of Europe and Elizabeth was tolerant in many ways.  In 1581, the Catholics on the continent, growing impatient with this Anglican queen called for her assassination.  It was foiled and she emerged more beloved by the English than ever—Catholic and Protestant.

            That was also about the time that Hawkins and Drake began to raid Spanish shipping with a vengeance.  The English were pirates. English Channel is well named.  English pirates went after Spain’s New World merchant vessels, and Elizabeth was secretly building ships for the pirates—a share of the loot was the payback.  All the while officially Spain and England were at peace and she claimed she could do little about the renegades.  When Drake and  Hawkins began to raid the Azores and the Caribbean and stole the African Slave Trade from Portugal, the Spanish had had enough.  They began to build an Armada to invade England. Now it may seem to us moderns that slave trade and piracy are disgusting acts, but in 1580 they were practiced by most nations.  Think of Elizabeth trying to break the Spanish and Portugese monopolies.

            1588 was do or die and Elizabeth found the English supporting her in excess of what she asked. Weather was part of the downfall of the Spanish fleet, but so were poor seamanship and tactics.  Spanish tactics were to pull alongside and grapple with hooks to join the boats for a massive hand-to-hand swordfight.  The English used cannons and strafed the Spaniards, and sent floating inferno boats into their fleet . They  defeated the Armada in a series of running battles for 3 weeks in July 1588. Of 130 ships and 27,000 men who had sailed from Spain, 10,000 mostly sick and hurt came home in 54 ships.  England had 82 ships and only a dozen lost.  England now had the way clear to settle in N. America, the greatest navy in the world, a stable currency, and it was insured that Europe would remain half-Protestant.

            Elizabeth was no saint or sage, but a woman of temper and passion, in some ways the wiser counterpart to her father.  She kept succession questions at bay while Mary Stuart was alive. Then Stuart's son James became King of Scotland.  Typically rebellious, he had turned Protestant and snubbed his French relatives.  He would be the new English king to oppose France and authorize the translation of the Bible.   

            Denied husband and child, Elizabeth mothered England, loved it, used herself up serving it.  She is still thought of as the greatest monarch England ever knew.  Low taxes and fees, patriotic, listened to everyone, built a strong national defense, broke the Spanish monopoly on the new world.  Looks like a conservative to me.

Imposing our Sovereignty

Barack Obama, President of the Galaxy, apologized for the USA “imposing our sovereignty” on Mexico yesterday.  I’ve been looking at the news but so far have found nowhere are Americans trying to take over Chihuahua or Sonora.  So then is Barack the Magnificent doing a historical apology?  (Strange apologies.  He always apologizes for the rest of us but never himself.) La Raza, the radical Mexican party has always claimed we took the US Southwest from them.  And nowadays you hear this interpretation more often.  So is Obama thinking of giving back California?  If he does, their debt goes with it. 

            But because I like history and studied Mexican history before we took our Mex foster daughter, it struck me that Barack needs to consult his history books.  Here’s what I remember.

            In 1824, Mexico was trying to get Anglos to emigrate to Tejas.  Mexico’s economy was based on a Spanish medieval model, the plantation, or hacienda model.  In this economy, a big shot was given rights to thousands of acres and ownership rights to all the people who were native to that area, whether they agreed or not.  The Hacienda owner would then induce, with promise of a good beef steak, or convert by the sword, or just round up the natives and make serfs out of them.  This functions somewhat in a heavily populated area, like the Central Mexican Plateau.  But farther north, where the Indians were unsubdued, and the population scarce it didn’t work.  Beginning in the 1820’s Mexico begged US Anglos, Czechs, and Germans to settle in the Hill Country of Texas and thus provide a buffer against the fierce Commanches (some suckers to protect the coastal haciendas).  The new citizens got Santa Anna to sign a treaty in 1824 allowing Tejas to have constitutional government, but Santa Ana was a dictator and reneged on his promise.  Thus Texans rebelled and had claimed independence by 1836.  Everybody recognized the new Republic of Texas except Mexico. 

            The fact that Mexico City didn’t really care much about the northern desert, but still claimed it, is indicated by lack of supplies provided to the Santa Fe area and virtually no population in what is now US Southwest.  California originally had 150,000 Indians and late in the game, the 1700’s, the Spanish sent in missionaries, who, in cahoots with the big shot landclaimers, virtually massacred all of them.  By 1848 there were about 30,000 Europeans in Alta California, 40,000 in Texas, and 10,000 in Neuva Mexico in between.  Most of the new arrivals in Neuva Mexico were Mormons and Anglos who could trade over the Santa Fe Trail with Kansas City easier than with Mexico City.  The reason why the Norte Americanos had successfully flooded this vast and somewhat barren land was capitalism.  Capitalism succeeds because it allows people to make money by serving others and using free markets. Other systems succeed by enslaving people.

            In March 1845 President John Tyler, a Whig, signed a last-act-of-his-term deal to admit Texas as a state.  Mexico was ticked and wanted to go to war.  Then came Democrat Polk who offered to buy Texas and areas west for $5 million.  Britain and France both tried to soothe Mexico and encouraged them to accept the deal. Mexico said nuts and USA subsequently won the war.  In the Treaty of Gwaddaloopie Hidalgo, Mexico was given $15 million and another $3.25 million to settle US citizen debts.  Good deal for Mexico! Got more money even though they lost the war.  And any  person in the the Southwestern area could claim Mex or US citizenship--“Amnesty” if you will.  Though Mexico was humiliated, a lot of people in Mexico thought they had gotten a wonderful deal for this godforsaken land up north.  A few months later, however, gold was discovered east of San Francisco. Within 12 months, the population of California doubled to 60,000.  And ever since then, Mexico has had a change of heart and has been bitching about USA “intervening” and taking what was rightfully theirs.

            But to the Americans from USA, this looked like Mexico sitting on a plot of land without doing much to really occupy it, with a claim to it made by long-lost conquistadors.  Can you just plant a flag, claim something, and then leave?  My Mex daughter, proud American citizen, said the answer is not No, it is Hell No!      

Have you done the math?

I have been hearing all sorts of political angles on immigration reform.  Hannity had Sen. Jeff Sessions on yesterday and he wants absolutely no part of any kind of reform.  Ditto Corker of Tennessee.  But then Limbaugh interviewed Rubio and had a lot of hard questions which Rubio fielded very well, saying that both a secure border and secure Visa management is a must before any pathway to citizenship can take place. And he admits that, done for purely political strategy, reform is likely to hurt Republicans.  Plus you have to worry about Obama cooking the books to claim border is under control when it isn’t.

            I did the math on it.  DHS claims there are 11.1 million illegals.  Let’s say that we can secure our present border problem.  Rubio wants ¼ as many entering but that is still 200,000 a year and I’d like to see numbers like 25,000 a year before we pronounce  the problem solved.  But then where do 11.1 million new citizens leave the Republicans?  Well, consider that about half are working age—16—so slightly fewer are voting age.  But then if you analyze Hispanic voting among citizens today, you discover that only 44% vote.  So the 11.1 million suddenly becomes about 2.5 million actual voters.  If they go 2:1 Democrat, that is a net loss of about 800,000 votes nationwide.  Compared with 138 million votes cast by the rest of us, or 0.6%.  Another way to look at this is that while Hispanics make up 11% of US population, they comprise only 7% of voters—10 million.  Adding another 2.5 million would up the 7% to about 9%.  But then the margin of Democrat gain is 1/3 of this or again 0.6%.  This might make a difference in a very close Kennedy-Nixon contest, but not in most elections.

            The next thing to think about is how loyal these first generation immigrants will be to the Democrats.  In a slack economy, they are least employable due to language and education deficiencies.  Thus they go on welfare, run by those air-headed states who don’t forbid illegals from getting freebies.  But states are running out of money, Hispanics like to work, and by second generation, Hispanics vote only 55% Democrat.  Within 10 years of entry into USA only 68% remain Catholic.  Evidently becoming an American encourages adjustment of thinking.  And that is what Rubio is counting on, ten years after borders close when those folks become citizens.  If the R’s play their cards right, they have a good chance of winning like they do in New Mexico where 40% of the population are Hispanos and long time citizens. 

 

    The jury is still out, but I think there is the possibility of a reform bill if R's in House can make some reasonable demands for structure.

Obama's Tax Return

So Barack and Princess Michele had an effective tax rate of 18% on income of 878K.  I can do math.  Excuse my rounding errors.  After charitables they had income of 605K and an effective 18% means they paid 108,900 clams to the Treasury.  Using tax tables for married filing jointly that’s the tax one would pay on 401K of income where the bracket has risen to 33%.  So where did the Obama’s get that $605,000-301,000= $304,000 of write-offs?  Maybe they have really, really expensive child care.  Maybe Barack deducts his utilities, whoops nope, Illinois has a state tax so he can’t do that option.  Maybe he had gambling losses or a bank account in Tangiers or Cyprus under a Muslim name.  I dunno.  How do you get $304K K in write-offs?

 

Whatever it was, he sure spent a lot of time huddling over the kitchen table with an adding machine compared to Joe Biden who had income of $378K and paid 20.4% effective rate on way less income.   Of course Joe only gave about 700 bucks to church or any other charity. 

Sensational review of Obama budget

The Obama Budget is an interesting read.  First of all, I have trouble with the ten-year budgets that he has instituted.  Projections of 10 years, when next year’s congress will be newly elected and will scoff at this year’s budget, don’t make much sense.  “Look, I’m 62 and have worked hard for 50 years.  So you can expect me to work hard for the next 50.”  But that aside, let’s take a look.

            $210 billion reduction over the next ten years is due to reduced interest payments on the public debt.  Presently interest is historically low, nearly zero.  And expanding government debt is sure to raise interest (Europe) or kill the economy with a perpetual recession(Japan).  Given America’s demand for growth, i.e. loose money, how much chance of lower interest do you think  there is? 

            $580 billion  in debt reduction is due to raising taxes on the rich termed “loophole closings”.  I ask you to list, say ten “loopholes”, in the current tax code.  You can’t deduct hardly anything except mortgage payments and contributions.  Maybe Obama thinks manufacturing expenses are loopholes.  At any rate it calls for limiting the amount of deductions you can take, and jacking up business taxes to 42%.  They are already the world’s highest at 25%.  Banks and financial institutions get hit with $100 billion in new taxes. And he wants capital gains rates to go up 8%. And, static model employed, businesses and rich will not likely change their behavior. (Ahem!!) Next Obama wants to cap your 401K and IRA.  The cap is higher than I’ll ever see--$3 million—but understand that you can take your pension as a lump sum and roll it over into an IRA. (you probably won’t get to $3M by saving $2250 per year) A lot of senior executives would max this out. Just remember this.  A government that considers it morally correct to tell you how much money people can save is a government that will confiscate without qualms and will never save anything themselves.

            Medicare spending gets cut $400 billion.  This somehow reminds me of the philosophy of my renters.  Just stop paying the rent or the doctor bills and say you have saved $400 billion. This ain’t hard.  I could just walk out of the grocery store and if someone claims I shoplifted, I would just say I’m saving my grocery money. Anyway, cutting MC should really comfort retirees.

            $200 billion gets cut from mandatory spending (like federal retirement benefits) and $200 billion from discretionary spending like national defense.  Once again, just refuse to pay the bill, and claim it is saving. 

            Finally Social Security gets chained CPI calculations which reduces the cost of living adjustments and “saves” $230 billion.   Are you seniors getting the idea that Barack doesn’t give a darn if you die hungry?  Well seniors vote +15% Republican you know. 

            So there you have it, the big Obama budget which likely won’t pass even among Democrats. Say, I have a novel idea.  Lets go back to the 2006 budget that was almost balanced, add 12% for inflation, and watch the return of prosperity.  (NOT entirely so simple since we have doubled the debt since then, but we had 4.3% unemployment then) 

What's the word for this?

Charrades, Sounds like peaches

Let me note a few things Obama has intended or done.

1.    Interfered with a church’s selection of ministers. Justice Dept. sued a Lutheran church who fired a teacher for teaching false doctrine bordering on paganism. Justice Dept argued that the church/school must consider all job seekers irregardless of faith and beliefs (atheists, Muslims, etc.) Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church/school based on right of assembly and free exercise clauses of First Amendment. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC)

2.    Deprive landowners of the right to challenge fines in court. (Sackett v. EPA)

3.    Made Military chaplains accept and perform gay marriage as part of their agreement to serve. (free exercise clause again)

4.    Demanded Catholics and others purchase insurance that covers birth control and abortifacients even though these are against the teachings of their faith.  (Did he miss the free exercise clause when he read the Constitution?)

5.    Attach GPS to a citizen’s vehicle to monitor movements even without any cause to believe that citizen has committed a crime. Was struck down by Supremes in (US v. Jones)

6.    Tried to override state law at his will. DOJ sued several states who had passed state laws to parrot federal law with respect to illegal immigration.  AZ is the most famous.  (also WI,OH,IN) Not only has Obama administration negligently enforced the federal law, they didn’t want states to do it for them. (Arizona v. US)

7.    Drone killed American citizens without bringing formal charges or had battlefield engagement.  When Rand Paul asked if the admin. could use a drone to kill a citizen sitting in a US restaurant, DOJ waffled over the answer until he forced their hand with a filibuster on the Senate floor and a very public attention to the question. (violates A4 “people to be secure in their persons” and A5 “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”)

8.    Destroy private property with paying compensation was struck down by Supreme Court in AR Fish & Game v. US (A4  “unreasonable search and seizure” and A5 due process and just compensation clauses)

9.    Dramatically sought to extend statute of limitations to impose penalties on acts done years ago. Was struck down in Gabelli v. SEC.

10.  Appointed at least 31 unaccountable ‘czars’ to spend money and oversee various government operations.   This violates Article II Sect. 2 of Constitution “advice and consent of the Senate”.

11.  Has refused to administer defend the Laws of the Land when he refused to defend Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court.  There are many other laws that one could argue he has let lie lapse. Violates Art. II, Section 3, “faithful execution of laws” clause and Declaration of Independence “assent to laws”.

12.  Demanded banks lend to bad credit risks as an implicit payback for being bailed out. This violates Declaration of Independence “free system” clause and A9 “rights retained by the people”.

13.  Was held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico.

14.  Abrogated bankruptcy law to defraud bondholders and hand over ownership of General Motors and Chrysler to union employees.

15.  Stopped deportation of illegal immigrants, even those who had felony convictions under US laws.

16.  Tried to tell a private company (Boeing) where they could and could not locate. (violates A9 once again)

17.   Enacted legal changes through executive orders.  Perhaps most notably established “Dream Act” to illegals which never passed Congress.

18.   Has mainstreamed the Radical Muslim movement.  In particular the DOJ has defended Sharia Law in several cases.  But US Constitution does not recognize foreign laws. Violates A XIV Sect. 3

19.   Obstructs justice and congressional inquiries with respect to Bengazi incident, Fast and Furious.

20.   Has made fun of rural folks and Christians as people who “cling to their guns and their religion”, asked people of color to “vote for revenge” AND continually seeks to create a society of dependents on federal aid and stirs them up to hatred against the rest.

Golly I can’t remember the word that describes what we do to tyrants, but it sounds like peach and the power to do it resides in Congress and is voted upon by the Senate. Can someone help me out in remembering the word?  And I have to tell it to someone in Congress because they evidently can’t remember what it is either.

DHS monitors Christians

I guess there is no escape now.  Glenn Beck/The Blaze ran the following article.

According to a Colorado undersheriff, Ron Trowbridge, alleged that the Department of Homeland Security trained police to look at Christians who take The Bible literally with intense skepticism.

Trowbridge wrote:

On April 1, 2013 I attended training in La Junta, Colorado hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP). The training was from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm and covered two topics, Sovereign Citizens, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. I was pretty familiar with motorcycle gangs but since we often deal with the so-called sovereign citizen groups I was interested to see what they had to say. The group consisted of police officers, deputies, and CSP troopers. There were about 20 people in attendance.
Trooper Joe Kluczynski taught a 2-hour section on sovereign citizens. Kluczynski spent most of his two hours focusing on how, in his view and apparently the view of Homeland Security, people turn to the sovereign citizen movement. Kluczynski started off by saying there are probably some sovereign citizens in this room and gave a generalized list of those groups that have sovereign citizen views. Among those groups, Kluczynski had listed, were those who believe America was founded on godly principles, Christians who take the Bible literally, and “fundamentalists”. Kluczynski did not explain what he meant by “fundamentalists” but from the context it was clear he was referring again to those who took the Bible literally or “too seriously.”

The sovereign citizen movement is comprised of individuals who believe they don’t answer to federal, state, and local laws. “It is a loosely affiliated group that rejects many elements of governance, including, but not limited to, taxation,” TheBlaze explains.

Well, I have news for DHS.  The people who take the Bible seriously obviously includes what are known as orthodox Christians.  These are the Christians who believe in 9 points about basic Christianity which include such things as Salvation by Grace, human/divine nature of Christ, and literal accuracy of Scripture.  This is what Barna calls ‘evangelical Christians’ and they comprise 8% of the population.  These basic teachings are the basic beliefs of just about every denomination in America.  A few like Jehovah Witness, Mormons, and Unitarians may take issue with one or several of the basic beliefs and are thus called unorthodox.  But since spiritual accuracy of Scripture is only one of the nine, it stands to reason that many more than the 8% fit the government’s estimate (and includes just about every pastor of orthodox Christianity).  In fact, Barna notes that 43% of the population believes in Grace and has had a personal experience of believing in that Grace for themselves.  These, he calls ‘born agains’.  That’s a lot of people for Homeland Security to monitor! (Well indeed, they are also watching those who merely believe that USA was founded on godly principles.)

 

I could perhaps joke that my own denomination is entirely full of people who believe in literal scripture, but we argue about what it means all the timeJ Indeed, I have met those who argue strongly for literal scripture but seem to believe that we get to heaven on merit. Given that our numbers are at least 8% and likely more like 40%, perhaps we should carefully monitor the Dept. of Homeland Security.

 

Are we getting close to the days of Bonhoeffer and Niemuller?