Thomas Jefferson: A Small Government President

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd president of the United States. If you rank a president's greatness by how much he increased the scope and size of government, Jefferson was not your man.  However, if you rank a president's greatness by his ability to defend and protect the Constitution, then Jefferson ranks among the better presidents.

The election of 1800 had Jefferson running against incumbent John Adams.  It was among the most bitter campaigns ever, and saw Federalists and Democratic-Republicans tossing vitriol violently back and forth. Keep in mind, however, that neither Jefferson nor Adams participated in the campaigning, as presidential candidates at this time thought that doing so would be seen as immodest.

Aaron Burr

The results of the election were that Jefferson received 73 electoral votes and Adams received 65.  A problem ensued as every one of Jefferson's electors were so loyal to the party that they each cast a vote for vice president Aaron Burr as well.  This meant that Jefferson was tied with Burr for the presidency.  This meant that the House had to decide who would be president.

Federalists made trouble by voting for Burr, and after 35 ballots no decision had been made.  However, on the 36th ballot, Hamilton abstained.  This time ten states voted for Jefferson and only four voted for Burr. This made Thomas Jefferson our third President and Burr our third Vice President.

Jefferson referred to the campaign as "The Revolution of 1800."  He said this because it was the first time in the new nation that power was transferred from one party to another.  During his inaugural speech on March 4, 1801, he said, "We are all Republicans -- We are all Federalists."  Such words were needed, or so he thought, to allay tensions created during the campaigning.

During the remainder of his speech he promised to govern under the following principles of government:

1. Strict Construction of the Constitution. He promised to protect and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability.  In other words, he promised to rule by limited government actions, and therefore to protect and defend state's rights.  
2. Decentralized Government.  Jefferson trusted the people to make the right decisions for themselves, and therefore, he would not use the government actions to intrude into the lives of citizens. He believed this would empower the individual to make the decisions necessary to improve their lots in life and to feed their own families.  In other words, he believed people were smart, and that the government could not solve problems better than the individual; that to improve society you must first improve the individual.

These have since become known as Jeffersonian Principles. During his first term he would live up to his own Jeffersonian Principles, as he would.

1. Champion Congress to repeal all the Alien and Sedition Acts, or allow them to expire
2. Pardoned those who had been imprisoned under the Sedition Acts
3. He cut federal policies set by Federalists, included some heavy taxes.
4. He cut federal actions to allow the states to govern without federal intrusion
5. He reduced federal expenditures and personnel
6. He reduced the national debt, and doubled the size of the Federal Treasury
7. He rejected the federalist idea of selling federal land at high prices to pay for government projects that would have improved infrastructure.  
8. Instead, by cutting the size of government, and cutting taxes, he doubled the size of the treasury, and doles out this money equally among the states for local improvement projects (see below)
9. He also sold land to ordinary Americans at modest prices, believing this would empower individual farmers in the west to prosper.
10. He empowered Americans to build up from below, rather than having the federal elites build up from above.  

He was also a good foreign policy president.  When the pasha of Tripoli began firing on U.S. merchant ships and demanded large sums of money.  When they refused to pay, the pasha declared war on the U.S. Jefferson responded by sending the USS Constitution and other warships to open fire on Tripoli.  

Several weeks later the fighting was over and the city surrendered.  A treaty was then signed that provided some protection for U.S. merchant ships in the Mediterranean. The battles "on the shores of Tripoli" are remembered in the current U.S. Marines' Anthem. 

Spain owned New Orleans, and allowed American trappers to transport their goods to the rest of the world through their ports.  When Spain ceded the city to the French, Jefferson became concerned for the trappers. He believed the French might cut off the ports to the Americans as he built a French colony in the huge Louisiana Territory.  After all, French Emperor Bonaparte Napoleon was an empire builder.

So, in the spring of 1803, Jefferson sent James Monroe to France to offer to purchase the ports of New Orleans.  Monroe was surprised to learn that the French would not only sell New Orleans to the Americans, but the entire Louisiana Territory.  The reason was probably because French needed money to pay for their costly wars in Europe.  

Monroe and Robert R. Livingston (the U.S. minister to France) agreed on April 30 to accept the offer. In this way, the Jefferson administration succeeded in doubling the size of the young nation for only 15 million dollars, or three cents an acre. 

Jefferson, as well as other Americans, had already been curious what this vast land contained, and so he met with his secretary, Meriwether Lewis, to discuss this topic.  After the purchase, Jefferson was given the funds he needed for an expedition.  Lewis, along with Captain William Clark, were sent to search for a water route to the Pacific Ocean and to record anything about the land, and the people they found, along their journey.  

Jefferson wanted badly to retire after only one term.  However, he knew the Federalists wanted to regain power badly, and they wanted to reverse many of the things Jefferson had accomplished.  So he was convinced to run for a second term.

The first order of business was to choose a new vice president.  He did not much like Aaron Burr, so he did not include him in much decision making.  In fact, Burr turned out to be a horrible vice president.  In 1804 he ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York and was so heavily criticized by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, that Burr Challenged Alexander to a duel to defend his honor.  Hamilton shot and missed, but Burr's bullet killed Alexander, who died days later of his wounds.  Hamilton's death meant the Federalist party lost it's leader, and so this pretty much sealed the fate of the Federalist party.

George Clinton

So Jefferson chose George Clinton from New York to be his vice president.

During his first term he succeeded in expanding the U.S. Treasury, so during his second term he decided to divide this money equally among the states (which was what the constitution allowed) so the states could decide how the money was spent.  However, Jefferson wanted the money to be spent on projects that would improve rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufacturers, education, and other great projects that would improve the nation.

The military also swallowed up large portions of the excess.  The most famous war at this time was the war between Britain and France.  Napoleon threatened to invade Britain, and so blockades were set up, and so French and British warships were also stopping American merchant ships, thus preventing them from delivering American goods to Europe.

Jefferson knew the American economy depended on trade with both Britain and France.  While Jefferson tended to side with the French, he also knew it was important to keep the peace with the British.  While others wanted America to side with France, others wanted it to side with the British.  Jefferson, on the other hand, believed war might weaken, or even destroy the young nation, so he did everything in his power to keep the peace with both nations.

While Jefferson worked to avoid war overseas, Aaron Burr was stirring up trouble at home.  Perhaps bitter from his fall from grace, he surreptitiously planned to raise an army of westerners who were unhappy with the new government.  He planned to drive out the Spanish from the Louisiana Territory and then move into the Spanish colony of Mexico.  He would then conquer some western states.  He would then, perhaps, name himself as leader of the new Empire.

Of course Burr's secret was revealed to Jefferson, and Burr was considered as a traitor and tried for treason.  However, even though most people considered Burr guilty, not enough evidence to convict him was available.  So he was acquitted by Chief Justice Marshall.

So the British and French had set up blockades to stop merchandise from getting to the other nation. However, the British had lost many sailors to war, so when they stopped American merchant ships, they forced American sailors to work for the British.  This greatly diminished American morale, especially considering the blockades were severely impacting the American economy.

In June of 1807, the American warship was stopped by the British warship Leopard off the coast of Virginia. The British insisted upon boarding the American ship, claiming the Americans were harboring a British deserter.  When the Americans refused, the British fired upon the American ship.  The British then boarded the American ship, and took two American sailors.

When news of this arrived in America, calls were rampant for war against Britain.  Jefferson still aimed to avoid war, and so he tried to broker a settlement, but it failed.  He then did something that was ahead of his time, and he prepared for war.  He had American businesses construct submarines with torpedoes to destroy British ships.  This was another of Jefferson's brilliant ideas, although it was not taken seriously at this time.

In December 1807 he attempted another strategy: he proposed an Embargo Act, and Congress passed it. This essentially created a ban on all trade with France or Britain.  His belief was that this would force these nations to deal more fairly with American merchant ships.

But the embargo also failed.  The only thing it succeeded at was causing thousands of American merchants and sailors to lose their jobs.  Farm prices dropped, and many farmers went bankrupt because they could not sell their crops at a profit.  In fact, the embargo hurt the U.S. more than either Britain or France.

In March 1809 he repealed the Embargo Act.

At the age of 66, Jefferson was tired.  He decided to follow in the footsteps of George Washington and retire from office after serving two terms.  His longtime friend, James Madison, would succeed him in office.

In the end, Jefferson believed in the power of the people.  He believed people were smart, and left to their own devices would solve problems better than government.  It was this approach which allowed any individual with a dream to prosper.  His system of limited government and strict constitutionalism would be used by most presidents who followed him, and with great success.

He made great strides to prevent war, even at the cost of his own legacy. He Jeffersonian Principles would create the cornerstone for a majority of presidents who succeeded him to the office.  He therefore should go down as one of the greatest presidents ever.

His party would dominate politics for the next 24 years. But eventually it would split into two factions that would become the Jacksonian Democratic Party and the Henry Clay Whig Party.

4 differences between liberals and conservatives

Dennis Prager recently wrote a series of columns, beginning with "To Defend a Position, You Must Understand Both Sides," explaining the differences between conservatives and liberals.  He said, and correctly so, that "At the very least, you need to understand both the liberal and conservative positions in order to effectively understand your own.

Difference #1: Liberals Believe Man is basically good.  That's what liberals think.  Since everybody is already innately good, there is no need for religion to teach people how to be just and moral. Since they believe all people are innately good, when people do something bad it's because they were influenced by outside forces, such as poverty, despair, and hopelessness.  When black people riot and commit crimes it's because they live in poor communities.

Democrats often excuse violent crimes by saying things like, "It's the fault of society," or "It's our fault because we didn't help them."  This is why liberals tend to feel guilty when crimes occur, because they feel there might have been something they could have done.  If a teenager goes on a rampage with an assault rifle, they may say something like, "This happened because of republicans."  Meaning that republicans oppose bans on such guns.

Conservatives, on the other hand, understand the undeniable truth that people are born morally flawed. This is why conservatives believe religion, and the morals and values it teaches, is important to a functioning society.  Lacking a good religious upbringing, children are more likely to commit crimes and less likely to succeed in life.  When a person commits a crime it's because that person made a bad choice.  Religion essentially teaches people how to be good, and it teaches personal responsibility.  If you make bad choices, it's your fault, not the fault of society or anyone else.

Of course, the idea that poverty causes people to commit crime doesn't make sense when you consider that the vast majority of people who are equally poor do not commit crimes.  Many liberals explain radical Muslim behaviors by saying these people come from impoverished nations.  The fact that most radical Muslims come from middle class families, and Osama Bin Laden was a billionaire, seems to elude them.

Difference #2: The Left Rejects Many Basic Facts of Life.  Conservatives, on the other hand, understand the basic fats of life, and base many of their beliefs on them.  For instance, conservatives understand that man is inherently flawed, and therefore needs religion to learn how to become good.  The left doesn't understand this fact, so liberals are are more likely to lose their religion, or at least not see the importance of learning about religion at school.  This is why conservatives are more likely to appreciate religion, and liberals more likely to be secular.

Conservatives understand that poor choices result in people committing crimes, and so they enforce laws to make people responsible for their own actions.  Liberals think things beyond a person's control lead them to commit crimes, and so they may be more lenient toward them, and feel bad for them.  They may blame republicans.

Conservatives are more likely to acknowledge what has become known as politically incorrect truths, but what they refer to as facts.  For instance, blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to commit crimes than whites.  Indians are the only people to have lost a war yet are treated as the victors.  They are more likely to display confederate flags as symbols of southern life, or to support teams using Indian names such as the Redskins and using Indian war chants to rev up crowds.

Liberals don't see these undeniable truths, and so they see it as offensive to blacks to say them.  Liberals think it's offensive when whites name their teams after Indians and use Indian war chants.  Liberals think it's offensive to blacks to say that blacks commit most crimes.  The undeniable truths that conservatives see are elusive to liberals.  This was how the political correct movement was formed.

Liberals don't like to hear undeniable truths, so they come up with speech codes at school.  If you speak certain truths you are punished, or called a race baiter, homophobes, bigot, inconsiderate, or some other offensive name.

Liberals want to avoid pain at all costs, and so nothing offensive can be said.  This also explains why they use bumper stickers like, "War is not the answer."  They do not understand the undeniable fact that wars are won with guns and tanks, not with pens and good wishes.  For instance, the Nazi's did not voluntarily stop slaughtering Jews, the Allies came in with guns and tanks and bombs and forced them to stop.

Conservatives understand that the only way to peace is through strength.  This explains why conservatives like Ronald Reagan believe it's important to build up our military.  Yet liberals don't understand this undeniable fact, and they believe strength on our side can be seen as offensive by the other.  So if they get mad at us and hate us and want to kill us, then it's our fault.

Conservatives understand the undeniable truth that marriage means something; it is necessary to hold the fabric of society together; it brings with it culture; it teaches culture; it teaches morals; it teaches right from wrong.  Liberals don't see this, and so they don't see a problem with changing the definition of marriage to include men marrying men.

Difference #3: Liberals believe the way to a better world is by doing battle with society's moral defects (real or perceived).  This makes sense, considering they believe people are morally good, so if there is a problem with a person, it's societies fault.  So, the way to make the person better is by improving society.  Unlike conservatives, they believe a perfect society is possible, and so they are continuously aiming for this goal by championing for laws to direct people in one direction or another.

This explains why those on the left are more involved with politics.  They must make laws in order to get people to act the way they want them to.  This explains why when you hear the terms "activist" or "social activist" you are usually referring to a liberal.  They want to change society so that it is constantly "moving forward," as they like to say.  And their efforts to perfect society is called "social justice."

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the way to a better society is with the moral improvement of the individual.  They believe the person must constantly do battle against inner forces to make himself or herself morally better.  They are less concerned with politics.  They don't want to change American politics, they aim to preserve tradition.  They are, in essence, trying to preserve the religious fabric of a society.  They are the defenders of religion.  They are the defenders of traditional marriage in order to preserve culture.  They understand that culture is important in order to improve the moral character of each person.

Conservatives believe improving moral character is important, although this culture must be taught one generation after another; it must be taught by mothers and fathers.  This is why conservatives tend to believe that poverty in impoverished inner city areas is caused by the break down of culture.  For instance, the fact that 9 in 10 black children are born to unwed mothers explains why crime and poverty is so high among the black population.  So they believe the way to end black poverty is to find ways to teach these people better morals and values.

Prager wrote:

The noblest generation ever born still has to teach its children how to battle their natures. If it doesn't, even the best society will begin to rapidly devolve, which is exactly what conservatives believe has been happening to America since the end of World War II.

Liberals believe the way to improve poverty is to create "social justice" programs that provide welfare and food stamps to these people.  They believe the state can make their lives better, and thus make the world a better place.  Yet conservatives understand the basic fact that the state cannot teach morals and values, only culture can do that, and (again) culture is taught by churches and families.  But the build-up of culture, and making the world good, takes time, and so is a slow process. It must be taught by each generation.

Liberals believe they can fix culture fast simply by making laws.  Or, in the case of the United States, where they cannot force people to act a certain way, they create "negative incentives."  Negative incentives means that you tell someone they have to act a certain way, or do a certain thing, or they will not receive government funding.  For instance, hospitals won't receive funding unless they go to paperless charting, or schools won't receive funding if they don't meat government set goals.

Prager wrote:

The Left does not focus on individual character development. Rather, it has always and everywhere focused on social revolution. The most revealing statement of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, the most committed leftist ever elected president of the United States, was made just days before the 2008 election: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," he told a large rapturous audience.

Furthermore, he added:

Conservatives not only have no interest in fundamentally transforming the United States, but they are passionately opposed to doing so. Fundamentally transforming any but the worst society -- not to mention transforming what is probably the most decent society in history -- can only make the society worse. Of course, conservatives believe that America can be improved, but not transformed, let alone fundamentally transformed... The Founders all understood that the transformation that every generation must work on is the moral transformation of each citizen. Thus, character development was at the core of both childrearing and of young people's education at school... As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."... And in the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. Why is that? Because freedom requires self-control. Otherwise, external controls -- which means an ever more powerful government -- would have to be imposed."

He said that the old adage "You must fix yourself before you can fix society" holds true for conservatives but not liberals.

Difference #4: Liberals Ask the Question: Does it feel good? On the contrary, conservatives ask: does it do any good?"  Prager uses affirmative action as an example.  In 1987 a conservative New York Times editorial asked the question: Does a minimum wage do any good?" The answer was this:

"Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market . … More important, it would increase unemployment. … The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable — and fundamentally flawed.”

So the answer was: no!  So the editorial suggested that the best minimum wage was $0.00.

A more recent post by a now liberal editorial staff at the New York Times championed for a rise in the minimum wage.  They did not pose the question: "Does it do any good?"  Instead, as liberals, they asked the question: "Does it make me feel good?"  The answer was yes.  It makes me feel good that I'm helping my fellow man by allowing them to make a better wage.  It makes the worker feel better because he is making more money.  The fact that my raise may cause my boss to go out of business, or to at least not hire any one new, or lay off one of my coworkers so I can get my raise doesn't matter.  Does it make me feel good about myself is all that matters to a liberal.

Another example Prager used was peace activism.  Does it do any good? No.  In fact, it actually makes matters worse.  If you get rid of all our weapons, and bad guys learn about this, then the bad guys will know that he can have his way with us.  During WWII the Nazis were killing Jews, and it wasn't a peace activist that got them to stop.  In fact, sending a peace activist to talk to Hitler would have gotten the peace activist killed.  So, does peace activism do any good?  No.  So conservatives won't do it.

However, the liberal asks, "Will it make me feel better?"  Well sure it will.  It will make me feel like I'm helping.  The fact that I'm making matters worse doesn't matter: I feel good about myself.  Does leaving Iraq do any good.  No, it only made ISIS.  But does it make Obama feel good about himself? Yes.

Prager concludes by saying:

Perhaps the best example is the self-esteem movement. It has had an almost wholly negative effect on a generation of Americans raised to have high self-esteem without having earned it. They then suffer from narcissism and an incapacity to deal with life’s inevitable setbacks. But self-esteem feels good.

And feelings — not reason — is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: “Does it do good?” Liberalism asks, “Does it feel good?”

There you go.

Further Reading:

• Differences between right and lift: part I
• Differences between right and left: part 2
• Differences between right and left: part 3
• Differences between right and left: part 4

What candidate should be chosen

When choosing a candidate to vote for, we must not choose candidates just to limit the criticism of the media. We must not choose a woman just because feminists think republicans have a war on women.  We must not choose a black candidate just because most blacks vote democrat.

Those are things we should avoid doing.  If we choose candidates that they want, candidates who might support a few things we are opposed to, such as the pro-choice movement, then all we are doing then is playing right into their agenda.  We don't want to do that.  That will get us nowhere.  

What we need to do is choose the best man or woman, black or white, yellow or red, Catholic or Jew, who is the best conservative for the job.  We must choose the most conservative candidate (The Bill Buckley Rule).  

We need to pick someone who can campaign well. We need to pick someone who can get votes. We need to pick someone who can speak well and articulate conservatism, like Ronald Reagan.  We need to pick someone who is a true conservative, not just someone who claims to be, like John McCain or Mitt Romney. We need to pick someone who truly believes what he or she is saying. 

Don't pick someone who is going to undercut the conservative agenda. Don't pick someone who disagrees with the cause on "just a few issues."  Don't pick someone just to satisfy a particular constituency that's more aligned with the democratic party. 

That's identity politics.  That's the wrong thing to do.  That's the opposite of the conservative cause.  The conservative cause is doing things, believing in things, that will lift the entire nation; that will benefit everyone.  We must not choose a candidate who caters to one cause or one group, but someone who is for lifting up the entire ship. 

We do not want gender politics.  We don't endorse that kind of planning.  What we want is to vote for the best person for the job.  We want only the best speaker, the best communicator, and the person with the best conservative agenda getting elected. It is this person who comprises the general classical liberal views of the majority of the people who live in this country. 

We want leaders who the most qualified to inspire and motivate all the people of this great nation, people who are right on the issues and policies. This is why it is important who you vote for, and why elections matter.  

Think of it this way. Here's a good idea of what I'm saying here. Every time the republican establishment nominates a candidate for president who is supposed to cater to the left on certain issues, we lose.  

I'll rattle off some names here: Gerald R. Ford, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (1992), John McCain, and Mitt Romney. These are all candidates who were moderate republicans, or those who catered to a certain group of people instead of the nation as a whole.  

When people see that the republican candidate is just as liberal as the democrat, they think that republicans are no better than democrats.  They might as well vote for the democrat and let them get blamed for advancing the progressive agenda, an agenda that creates nothing but chaos and failure. 

We need to vote for the best conservative candidates, and it does not matter what race, color, sex, creed, or even political affiliation.  What matters is that these men and women understand that it was classical liberalism, now called conservatism and libertarianism and constitutionalism) that made this country great, and this is what will make this country great once again.  

What if I said Liberalism is the gutless choice (or it's easy to be a liberal)?

Recently one of my Facebook friends posted a link an article called "Anti-intellectualism is killing America."  The article pretty much stated that anyone who doesn't support the liberal agenda is a moron.

Here, read for yourself paragraph #3 of the article:

In a country where a sitting congressman told a crowd that evolution and the Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell,”, where the chairman of a Senate environmental panel brought a snowball into the chamber as evidence that climate change is a hoax, where almost one in three citizens can’t name the vice president, it is beyond dispute that critical thinking has been abandoned as a cultural value. Our failure as a society to connect the dots, to see that such anti-intellectualism comes with a huge price, could eventually be our downfall.

The way I read that paragraph, anyone who supports the conservative agenda is as stupid as the idiot who can't name the vice president.  So I'm supposed to take this lightly?

Now, consider if I stated the opposite.  Consider the following.

Rush Limbaugh says that liberalism is the gutless choice.  By this, he means that it's easier to be a liberal (or progressive) than it is to be a conservative.  The reason is that all you have to do to be a liberal is to show empathy and emotion. and then come up with solutions someone else has to pay for.

And if a Republican criticizes you, all you have to do is tell them they are a heartless, thoughtless, racist, sexist, homophobe who doesn't care about the needy. Or, as in my example above, all you have to do is tell them they are "anti-intellectuals."

Most people just use the dumbed down version of this, which is "stupid."

Others will simply site an insult to Rush Limbaugh, such as, "Rush Limbaugh is getting to your head," or "Rush Limbaugh is an idiot," or, "Rush Limbaugh is a meany."  Of course Rush Limbaugh, like other conservatives, are perceived as mean because they understand and openly talk about painful truths.

You may also use a more polite approach by saying something like, "You're being negative again," or "You are a backwoods person,"

Or, to be more crafty, you could say something like, "You're a right-winger," or "You're from the religious right."

All of these are personal attacks, which are all much easier than citing truths.  Since liberalism is based on feelings more so than facts, it is much easier to toss vitriol at those who agree with you than facts.

If you talk about your conservative viewpoints, they look at you as though you are stupid, insensitive, homophobic, racist, backwoods, or vitriol they can think of at the moment.  This is because they think they are normal, mainstream, and anything a conservative says is no longer mainstream.

If you defend the traditional view that marriage should be between a man and a woman, they call you insensitive and homophobic, even though that's not even close to the truth.  If you say the law should be followed and illegal immigrants sent back home, they say you are an insensitive racist.  If you defend the second amendment gun law, you are backwoods.  They look at you as though you are an idiot.

Regarding this, Rush Limbaugh said:

I know this is gonna be hard for people to believe. It's a psychological thing. Most uber-leftists do not even think of themselves as that. I mean this psychologically. They think they are normal. They call themselves pragmatists. Anything not them is what's odd, weird, kooky, major, major minority, really, really small, unhip, uncool, whatever. They are ideologues, but they don't have to calculate their ideology every day. It's just who they are and it's how they operate. And it is what guides them. I mean, they are that first, second, and third. They are liberals first, liberals second, liberals third, whatever else they are then weighs in.

So you see Radical Islamic Thugs in France killing innocent victims.  You have Liam Neeson out there saying, " There are too many F*^*ing guns out there. Especially in America. I think the population is like, 320 million? There are over 300 million guns. Privately owned, in America. I think it’s a f#%#ing disgrace. Every week now we’re picking up a newspaper and seeing, ‘Yet another few kids have been killed in schools'."

So all you have to do to be a liberal is to show that you care and then to champion for a law to take away a natural liberty.  You care about the poor people who are killed by a thug, so the solution is to make laws to take away guns.

Making laws like this make them feel good about themselves.  Conservatives ask: Does it make sense? Liberals say, "Does it make me feel good."  Yes, gun laws make me feel good.  No, they don't make sense because they don't work.  A good example is Chicago, which has the strictest gun laws in the world, and the highest crime rates. 

What these people fail to do is to ration that if you take away guns from law-abiding citizens, bad guys will still have them.  This means that law abiding citizens will be unarmed, and only the thugs will have guns.  That means...

And then, assuming you do manage to take away all the guns, the bad guys, who will still exist, by the way, will still find weapons.  They will probably carry knives.  Or maybe they would go back to swords.

That logic simply slips by them.  When they hear such logic they don't know what to do, so they toss vitriol at you.  

You can look at other areas too.  Ben Franklin once said: "I am for doing good to the poor... I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

The modern liberal doesn't think the same way Ben Franklin did, as such logic slips right by them.  They don't see any empathy in not letting the poor in the country feel too comfortable in their poverty.  Instead, they see empathy as forcing hard working people to pay for entitlement programs that make the poor comfortable in their poverty.  

The logic that this creates more poverty slips right by them. The logic that higher taxation and regulation creates fewer jobs slips right by them.  The logic that lower taxes create more wealth, slips right by them.  The logic that lower wages create more jobs, slips right by them.

All that matters to them is that they have empathy for the poor and did something about it. It doesn't matter that their ideas do not work and never have.  It does not matter that their ideas do nothing but create chaos. 

It was based on this philosophy that Bill Clinton said to an AIDS activist in 1992, "I feel your pain." Yes, he does feel your pain, and to show he cared he forced people like you and me who are trying to make a living to pay for it. 

So, you see, this is what I mean when I say that it is easy to be a liberal.  To be a conservative it takes a lot of time educating you.  You have to read a lot and think a lot about what you read.  You have to take ideas and twist them around to find solutions that really work.

Being a conservative means more than just having empathy, it means using logic to solve problems.

Further reading:

1. Psychology Today: Anti-Intellectualism is killing America
2. Rush Limbaugh: Liberalism: The most gutless choice you can make
3. Crazy leftists, they think they're normal

Negative action has doomed the republican cause

Negative action is doing the opposite of what you believe in order to make people think you are not evil and wicked.  While such negative action has become popular among republican lawmakers of late, it has resulted in a poor public image of the party, inhibiting the parties ability to capitalize on an unpopular president.

Negative actions have doomed the republican party.  For example, there are christian republicans who love all people but do not support gay marriage laws.  However, some of these folks have become convinced republicans are not winning elections because they are seen as anti-gay.  To remedy this they support gay marriage laws.   In essence, they do the opposite of what they believe in order to get votes.

Most republicans are in favor of shoring up our borders in order to prevent immigrants from illegally coming into this country.  They also favor the enforcement of immigration laws already on the books. They believe this is necessary to reduce the financial burden to states, and keep criminals and diseases outside our borders.  Yet since there are those who believe amnesty would secure the Spanish American vote, some republicans, such as John McCain and George W. Bush, support amnesty programs.

There are many people who believe Obama should be impeached because he has violated the Constitution with all his executive orders.  They believe this is unconstitutional on the grounds that the constitution allows this executive privilege so a president may take action in the face of emergencies when Congress is not in session.  Yet in order to not offend voters they have resisted attempts at impeachment.

The result of such negative actions is that we end up with laws the people don't want.  This should help explain why Congress is so unpopular.  It should also help explain why the checks and balance system created by the founders has not been able to stop the president from abusing his powers,

Negative actions also cause obscurations, or things that hinder people from learning the true power of what a person, or faction, can do.  When this happens, people lose the ability to see whether a politician is truly a conservative or a liberal.  A good example here is Mitt Romney, who ran for president as a conservative, but because he used negative actions to become governor of Massachusettes, many saw him as a liberal, or moderate, republican.  This might explain why conservatives were not excited about a Romney presidency.

Obscurations, therefore, create more ignorances.  The more ignorant a populace is as to the potential that could be obtained by voting for republicans, the less likely they will vote for them.  For instance, by telling the people you are for amnesty because you think people Spanish Americans would be more likely to vote republican, fewer Spanish Americans vote republican. Why would they change their vote to republican when both parties stand for the same thing?

By taking the negative action of blocking impeachment attempts you are in essence enabling ignorance on the errors of our president.  This is because, lacking impeachment, there will be no effort to educate the people as to the unconstitutional behavior of the president.  When people are not educated, they continue to remain ignorant.

By taking the negative action to not deny funding to Obama that would allow him to advance his agenda, Obama has no incentive to stop using his pen.  Lacking funds his pen would become academic, yet republicans don't want to do this because they think inaction would cause the public to hate them less.  However, the public continues to hate them due to their inaction or, more specifically, their negative action.

So, negative actions may cause obscurations that result people thinking worse about republicans, and not better. Negative action causes people to remain ignorant.  Negative action does not win people over to the cause.  Negative action does nothing more than weaken your position and draw fewer people to your side.

You see, polls show that Obama is unpopular right now.  Most people don't like Obamacare, they are upset about the way he has handled the economy, upset about how he has handled immigration reform and border security, and upset about how he has handled the Ebola crisis.  Yet republicans have not capitalized on this because they have a public relations problem that has essentially been caused by the constant use of negative actions.

Reports have it that, after the midterm elections, Obama wants to take executive action to create give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already inside this country. If republicans want to stop him they must take positive action in order to educate the public as to the worthiness of their cause.  Republicans could win on this, because, as CNN reports, 75 percent of Americans are already opposed to amnesty.

Reports have it that he wants to cut back on our nuclear stock because he thinks it will show other nations we don't mean them any harm, thus encouraging them to set down their weapons.  Yet republicans claim, and history shows, that other nations will do the opposite: they will stockpile and destroy a weakened and naive United States. This is what thug nations and terrorist factions do.  Just look at what happened in Israel for a good example.  If republicans want to stop this behavior, the only option they have is to take positive action against the President.

The lesson learned here is that republicans have a public relations problem, and it has been caused by too much negative action.  The simplest remedy for this is for republicans to simply stand up for the principles they believe in by positive actions, or actions that support the causes they believe in.

Should Obama be impeached?

If the only way to stop a lawless president from ignoring the constitution and over-stepping his bounds is impeachment, and the opposing party takes impeachment off the table for fear of backlash from voters, then there is no means of stopping him.

David Limbaugh wrote a good column ("Democrats, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law") on this subject. He makes a great point that. He writes:

Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. As part of that, they will say that Republicans are guilty of precisely what they are doing. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

He added that while some conservatives would support a president ignoring the Constitution so long as the means was justified, most would not. He said:

But let me ask you to consider this: As a conservative, I would oppose judicial activism (roughly defined as the courts rewriting or making laws rather than interpreting them) to achieve conservative political ends. I don't know many liberals -- other than perhaps law professor Jonathan Turley -- who can make a similar statement.

It's not a matter of my (and conservatives generally) being more moral than liberals. That's not the point at all. The point is that we believe that preserving the integrity of the Constitution, as written and originally intended, is itself an essential end. 

We cherish liberty, and we understand the inextricable relationship between preserving the integrity of the Constitution and preserving our liberties. Anytime our constitutional system is undermined through egregious executive, legislative or judicial overreaches, our liberty is diminished.

He added:

When President Obama continues to act outside the scope of his executive authority and against the express will of Congress, he is, in effect, disenfranchising the people and thereby diminishing our liberties. When the courts rewrite laws to achieve their ideological or political ends, they assault the prerogative of the legislative branch and thereby further disenfranchise the people and popular sovereignty.

As a strong believer in the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the doctrine of federalism and other essential limitations on government, I abhor judicial activism, executive overreaches and congressional usurpations, even if these abuses might be in furtherance of my political or ideological preferences. For to me, there are few more important principles than preserving the Constitution and the rule of law.

Basically, there is no law to stop a lawless president. In fact, the only thing that has stopped a president from over-reaching as Obama is today is the honor system and luck.

We have been lucky never to have a Stalin or Hitler or Hugo Chavez or Obama elected to the office of the President. Plus, all previous presidents honored and respected the rule of law (the Constitution) basically on an honor system.

So, basically, the only thing preventing any of the previous presidents, those before Obama, from violating the rule of law was the honor system. Other than that, the only means of lashing out against a lawless president is to wait for the next election.

In this case, November of 2016 might be too far away. That gives the president another two full years to further ignore and trample on our great Constitution, at the expense of our liberties and freedoms. That in mind, I am not endorsing impeachment, but it should not be taken off the table.