Saturday, February 12, 2011

Be Careful When you Bash Bush!

You know, I'm getting tired of hearing about how bad George W. Bush was as president. Here's an inside tip for you--GEORGE BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE. OK, now that we have that out of the way, be careful how you bash Bush's policies, because when you do, you're not helping Mr. Obama at all. Let's look the differences between the policies of these two presidents:

EVIL BUSH POLICIES                                        WONDERFUL OBAMA POLICY
War in Afghanistan                                              War in Afghanistan 
War in Iraq                                                          War in Iraq

Wiretapping American Citizens                             Wiretapping American Citizens

Drone attacks killing “suspected” terrorists             Drone attacks continue    
Increased the budget deficit, debt                           EXTREME increase in debt, deficit
Advocated amnesty for illegal aliens                        Advocates amnesty for illegals    
Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay                     Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay
Retains right to “enhanced interrogation”                  Retains right to these methods
Expanded government involvement into                    Attempt to nationalize health care
health care (prescription drugs)
No security for Southern border                               Even LESS security at border
Cozy Relationship with Oil Industry                         Cozy Relationship with Oil Industry
 Lobbyists in adminstration                                     More lobbyists in administration
 Unemployment rising                                             EVEN higher unemployment

Now, I opposed almost everything Bush did as president. He governed like a Democrat. So I get tired of the litany of accusations against Bush as a defense of Obama. It doesn't fly any more. You guys need to stop this excuse about having inherited a mess. EVERY president inherits a mess. The president is supposed to make things BETTER not worse. 
When you compare the policies of these two, it seems to me that Obama is really Bush on STEROIDS!

Thanks for listening to my rant.
Bob Roushar

Saturday, February 5, 2011

Was Jesus a Liberal?

Dear Friends:

I have heard it said that we shouldn't mix politics and religion, but in a sense, how can you separate them? I mean, theocracies are dangerous and have never worked without oppression and bloodshed, but in a way, we can't divorce our set of values from the way we vote.

I have noticed that if one goes to a new-thought church, it is assumed that he or she is a liberal in his or her politics. This is an erroneous assumption. There are many of us who believe in the universality of the divine principle, and of our connectedness. That does not mean we all believe in the same principles of governance.

I have had friends who bring up Jesus with regard to so many of the issues we are debating about today, trying to prove that Jesus was a liberal, I guess. Well, we can't say with certainty what he WOULD do if he were alive today, but we know there are things he did not do.

Jesus did not demand that the government take care of the poor or sick. He told his followers to do that. He did not tell his followers to force someone else to do it, nor to shame them into doing it. No, the responsibility was firmly on their shoulders.  Jesus told his followers to turn the other cheek, but he did not tell the government to do so. Jesus did not demonstrate against the government about the wars it was involved in--if fact, he did not demonstrate against the government at all about anything. This makes Jesus more like a conservative than a liberal.

If you are a political conservative who feels out of place among new-thought people, then relax. Your view is valid. It is compatible with universal principle and connectedness. Holding people accountable to work and take care of themselves and their families is a good thing, a compassionate thing--and so is charity. Conservatives statistically give more to charity than do liberals. We are all one in a sense, of course--but our checking accounts are not. Every individual has a lesson to learn about money and work and the relationship between the two. Every individual must find their own way, and it is our joy to help when we can.

There is nothing to be ashamed of for a conservative position on politics. It reveals your love of freedom and a desire for that freedom to be preserved for everyone.

Bob Roushar

Monday, January 24, 2011

Conservative Principle Number 1--Minimum Necessary Government=Maximum Individual Freedom

In the spirit of understanding and cooperation, I would like to initiate a series of articles which will explain the conservative position and motivation. It seems that there are many who act as if conservative folks are scary or heartless, because conservatives believe in the right of self defense, and disagree with government-provided welfare.
I firmly believe that fear of something decreases with understanding of it. In this spirit, I would like to describe and define the principles behind conservative positions. I will call these principles of liberty the Liberty Lions. I call them this because each one is powerful, and can stand on its own. Once we unleash these Liberty Lions, all other arguments fail before them. Freedom is won.
The first principle is that of Minimum Necessary Government. Minimum Necessary government is simply the minimum government necessary to safeguard our freedom. You see, we do not believe that the purpose of government is to “take care of us.” That leads to dependency and eventually oppression. What is the purpose of government? Put simply it is to keep us free.
Government can keep us free by imposing penalties upon those who harm our persons or property by force or by fraud domestically, and by protecting us from those outside our country who would do the same. That’s it. That is the purpose of government. That’s why we have a system of courts and law enforcement agencies. Taxes are imposed to pay for things such as courts, judges, law enforcement agencies and officers.  The rest is up to us as individuals. We are free to make of our lives what we resolve to.
In the beginning of our nation, it was a tacit agreement between citizen and government that this is the purpose of taxes. Later, as money in the national treasury increased, this money was seen by members of congress as loot to be sent to their respective districts in the form of pet projects and sometimes very wasteful endeavors. Why do I bring this up? Because by taxing the citizens for purposes other than law enforcement and national defense, the government is taking our freedom, rather than protecting it.
You see, the government is the only entity that can legally take your property by force. My money is my property. It represents either hard work or smart work, or both, or in the case of inheritance, the hard or smart work of one’s predecessor.  Now that the members of the government have discovered that they can use our money to buy votes for themselves from special interest groups, there is no limit on the amount of our money they desire. This is tyranny. This is an attack on the very premise of private ownership, because right now, there is nothing in the US Constitution which places a limit on the amount or percentage of taxes the government may levy on us. It is a blank check, or more appropriate, a credit card with no limit.
So we have a government that used to guard our freedoms as individuals, but now, because we collectively own this large amount of collected money, we have lost the individual right to choose how our money is spent. Even worse, our government has spent money than it takes from us, so now we have become collectively liable for the debt. Now whichever party is in power can control the spending of YOUR money. And, my friend, think not that is just waste at issue, but also the government’s expansion of itself. In order to secure power, the government makes more and more promises that are increasingly expensive.
When you work, and earn money, but another who has not worked for it can take it from you in any amount and for any purpose they decide-- you are not free.  Conservatives believe in limiting government to its basic minimum functions. We believe that this will maximize our individual and collective liberty. That is the agenda of the true conservative or libertarian—to limit the size and scope the government and its activities.
Bob Roushar

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Preventing Future Tragedies

Dear Friends:

All this talk about making it against the law to posess a gun within 1000 feet of a public official misses the point. Could such a law have prevented Jared Loughner from shooting those people the other day? Let's see, Mr. Loughner would have said, "I really want to kill that woman, but I can't -- I just found out its against the law to get near her with a gun, oh well. I guess I’ll go home and watch American Idol.” Really?

Instead of outlawing the implements of crime, why not outlaw the crime itself. Why not make murder illegal. Oh wait . . . don’t we already have a law against murder.  Well, in fact . . . now that I think about it, I'm . sure it's illegal. Hmm . . .it's illegal, yet Loughner committed murder anyway. How can that be? , He can't do that, it's illegal!

When someone decides to murder people he is not even acquainted with, it makes the rest of feel very vulnerable. If it can happen to them, it can happen to us. We don't like to feel vulnerable. So we frantically try to come up with ways to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. Mankind has wrestled with this problem from the beginning of recorded time. No one has ever come up with a way to prevent someone from making that deadly decision.

The truth is, it WILL happen again -- and yet again. This world is fraught with danger of all kinds, whether natural disasters, accidents, and injury that result from free will and intention, such as murder. Let us mourn the dead, comfort the survivors, and go on living, accepting the risks of life without fear.

Bob Roushar

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

I Found the Solution

Are you concerned about the angry speech on the cable and the airwaves? There may be a solution. You big-government fans may really like this one. The constitution guarantees free speech, forbidding the congress from passing any law that restricts speech, I think I found a loophole! Nothing in the Bill of Rights keeps the government from regulating emotion! Think of it—speech is not the problem, according to the widespread complaints—no, it is the emotional component of the speech that is causing concern.
So why not regulate anger? If you are not angry, you won’t engage in angry speech, nor will you be tempted to damage delicate psyches by using parody, sarcasm, sardonic humor or that most uncivilized of all behavior--criticism. Here’s how it would work—if you think you have reason to be angry about something, then you have to apply for a permit. A panel of court judges will decide whether you have a legitimate cause to be angry.
If they find that you grievance does not qualify as something to be angry about, then your permit will be denied. If you express anger to the judges for their decision, they will take your shoestrings and belt and send you to a special place where nice people will help you to cope with life without being angry. After all, the government is here to help.
If we can implement this program throughout the land, we can restore civility to our discourse. Just think of it, from now on, all the news anchors speaking in sparkling tones with smiles akin to those on the performers on the Lawrence Welk Show. Wouldn’t that be nice?
God Bless you all,
Bob Roushar

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Guilt about success and prosperity serves no one.

Dear Friends:

In our popular culture there is always an ample measure of guilt because we are prosperous and healthy when there are so many who are not. This is not healthy for us or for those who suffer, as Catherine Ponder said once, "how does it help someone who is suffering for me to feel bad as well."

The answer, of course, is that it hellps no one. It doesn't even help me to help those who suffer. If you do something, do it out of love, not out of guilt, and please, please--do not try to shame others into helping. It doesn't 'work. Only love works. If you want further guidance, read about the example of Mother Teresa, who was against nothing, but for FOR many good things.

To this end, I want to share with you a poem from the Dhammapada:

Live in Joy,
In Love,
Even among those who hate.

Live in Joy,
In Health,
Even among the afflicted.

Live in Joy,
In Peace,
Even among the troubled.

Look Within,
Be Still,
Freee from fear and attachment,
Know the sweet joy of the way.

Dhammapada, translated by Thomas Byrom

Bob Roushar