Of Dishonesty and Politics (Part 2)
Part 2 concluding a series recently published in 12 Iowa newspapers
The role of government in an ideal world should be little more than the provision of safety and order. It is understood that it costs money to provide safety and order, so government is allowed, in the form of a 
necessary evil, to tax those private businesses, run by individuals who create wealth. If government takes too much from the wealth-creating individuals, government is capable of destroying the very businesses necessary for its continuation. So, what remains is a question of how much we will LIMIT the destructive and parasitic acts of taxation which determine the private sector’s nationally realized economic success.
The Germans in 1932 didn’t get it. And while the American founders certainly did, it remains to be seen if we modern Americans… ever will again. Believing that it was the role of government to handle economics and personal welfare of the citizenry was Germany’s first error. Their second error was to be driven in popular rage by that same love of money, ignoring the trouncing of their own constitution by Hitler, and voting through a referendum, in popular madness, to anoint Hitler as supreme ruler. It’s too bad that their “conservative Christian” president Hindenburg lent Hitler credibility, after defeating him in the elections, by appointing him to the German equivalent of “vice-president.”
It is virtuous and intelligent for human beings to possess a sense of moral and ethical PRIORITIES in politics. What’s MANIACAL and DANGEROUS is to allow the fallen and lowest nature of man, his love for money, to constantly insist that it is exclusively the issue of economics that perpetually belongs in the number one position. What’s more bizarre is that some would pretend all political issues are on equal footing.
Social conservatives are inappropriately labeled as “single-issue voters” all the time. The irony is that I DON’T SUPPORT “single-issue voting” any more than the next guy! I just find it humorous that the most outspoken critics against “single-issue voters” are almost always “single-issue voters” themselves! Yes, you read that right! The people who hurl that accusation most often only have ONE SINGLE ISSUE they are willing to discuss in the open – economics! That makes them something worse than “single-issue voters,” it makes them hypocrites with double-standards, not to mention, deplorably selfish, shallow and intolerant!
No one should understand the consequences of lending credibility to those who don’t deserve it, better than the people of Iowa. If Branstad, a self-proclaimed “evangelical” had possessed authentic conservative convictions, two of the three currently seated activist judges responsible for debasing our state to the level of an oligarchy, would not have been appointed to the bench in the first place, and his pro-abortion lieutenant governor might not have acquired the moxi necessary to conspire with those same judges in the usurpation of the role of the legislative body – ramming gay marriage down the throats of all Iowa citizens.
The problem is larger than guarding a sensible definition of marriage; it presents a question of whether or not we will preserve our republic, in preference to rewarding the fountainhead of the problem, by re-electing him to the position of Governor – for a fifth time, no less. The governor’s position is one he does NOT deserve, if for no other reason than his inability to say, “I’m so sorry. I’d like a chance to right my own wrongs by asking for another chance to rectify them.” No such words have yet escaped his impenitent lips.
You see, political moderatism is little more than intellectual dishonesty, unworthy of any serious consideration. Those who espouse the position are either dishonest with others, themselves, unintelligent, or all of the above. The media at large has done a stellar job of vilifying both the “left” and the “right” by assigning the descriptive word “far.” But we need not be fooled by repetition. It would be a better moniker to call them “honest left” and “honest right.” It’s the folks stuck in between who are furthest from certainty.
THINK WITH ME PEOPLE! Either the government gives permission to the individual to exist, as espoused by the honest left, or the individual gives permission to the government to exist, as espoused by the honest right (in agreement with the founding fathers). The “moderate” position between these two points of reality is the untenable and silly notion that both could be true at the same time.
As I reflect upon the elections I have participated in since my 18th birthday, I can honestly say that most every one of them was, on some level, a choice between the lesser of two or more evils. It’s when the lesser choice is barely a lesser choice, and the perceived evil is too great to bear, that the argument in favor of choosing one of the two fails to constitute good judgment. Moderatism has been hurting Iowans for a long time. I won’t be choosing a lesser choice this November. It’s time to punish panderers in the State of Iowa.
May God bless those with the courage to say “enough is enough! Bring us honest men!”
