The Right Rev Rowland

For those of you who don’t know, we are not a strict democracy. The government of the United States was designed to be a republic. The dictionary definition of republic:

 ”a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”

In a republic, the voters select representatives who govern for them, and it is in accordance with established law. I don’t have to govern every day because I’ve got people. I voted for them and sent them off to represent me in the government, and I trust them to use their common sense and integrity to the betterment of the whole of the people.

The dictionary definition of democracy:

“government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority”

 In other words, a straight democracy is rule by the mob. The majority rules. If 51% of the people want to take your stuff, you lose your stuff. The mob is subject to passions of the moment, and trusting your future and safety to the mob is a dangerous way to live.

When the Founders of our nation sorted through all the forms of government available to them for the American experiment, a democratic republic was the absolute best solution they arrived at. With the democratic principles of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, combined with the protection of the minority with equal representation, they created a system of government unheard of in the history of mankind.

This new creation of a government in the United States, partnered with a free market economic system, led to the most free and prosperous people of any nation ever recorded on earth. Liberty had come to mankind, and coupled with the responsibility of citizenship, was spread to encompass all who lived within her borders. The seeds of change were also included in this bold experiment, to become inclusive of ALL citizens, leading to sufferage for women and the civil rights conferred upon all people equally, minorities and majorities included.

This delicate balance of a representative democratic republic was protected by a few vital provisions. The number of members of the House of Representatives was to be determined by the population within a state, providing a direct reflection of the populous. Each state was given two senators, and those senators were chosen and appointed by each state’s legislature, not elected.

The protection to the people was that they directly elected their house representativeds and their state legislature and so had a say in what sort of representation that state would have in both the house and the senate. In 1913, the 17th amendment to the Constitution gave the people of each state the right to vote directly for their senators. It was a step away from the original protections of a republic and toward the mob.

In selecting the President, each state was given a certain number of electors, determined by their population, which would be awarded based on the outcome of the vote within that state. This was yet another protective measure for the smaller states, that their votes would count toward the candidate of their choice. The state legislature was entrusted with determining the manner in which the electors were assigned. Some states opted for a winner-take-all assignment, while others split their electors based on the percentage of the vote recieved. In each system, the individual states would assign their electoral votes in response to the vote of the people OF THAT STATE.

Today there is a movement to abolish the Electoral College. Some claim that it is antiquated and no longer serves its purpose. They advocate that the direct majority should determine the outcome of the national elections. They call this winning by the popular vote. Whichever candidate garners a higher number of votes nationally is the winner.

This straight popular-vote determination disenfranchises the voters of smaller states with lower populations. It removes the protections they have from the tyranny of the majority by negating their votes in favor of larger, more populous states. It is a huge step toward the rule by the mob, or a straight democracy.

In Nevada, our legislature just passed AB413, which will award Nevada’s electors to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. What this means is that even if every citizen in Nevada chose candidate X, but candidate Y got more in the national popular vote, then NOT ONE of Nevada’s electors would go to it’s chosen candidate. This is a travesty of our system of government, and disenfranchises the voters of Nevada.

Now, the President of the United States only has to curry favor with the most populous states and can ignore the smaller states. If a small state wanted to send a message to a popular President by voting for his opponent, they could be dismissed as irrelevant, because enough other states will carry the victory. With this new legislation, the vote of the people in a small state will not even register, as the electors are awarded to the national popular vote.

It is taking the right of the voters of the State of Nevada to have their votes counted in favor of what OTHER states do. This is an appalling lack of representation of the Nevada State Legislature on behalf of the voters of Nevada. They have created a situation where others states can ignore the vote of Nevadans. HOW is this in the best interest of the voters of Nevada? In what way do Nevada citizens benefit from giving their votes away to the national mob?

I’ve yet to hear a plausible explanation from the legislature. I also noticed that it passed down a straight party vote, with every single Democrat voting for the measure, and every single Republican voting against. Surprising, actually, I thought that Nevada Republicans had slipped into a coma. Maybe some limited-government principles DO still exist in the Battle-Born State. Sadly, not enough. And even more sadly, not enough Nevada citizens will even understand what they are losing, or why it matters.

The march toward the mob continues, to the tune of democracy. It all sounds warm and fuzzy, until you find yourself in the minority, and the majority has just decided they want your stuff.

I’m just sayin………

[Tweet This] Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

I can’t even begin to express the frustration of the conservatives that I have been meeting since the last election. Many are in a place of frustration from feeling trapped by the current political system we are working in, as the conservative voice is being marginalized (purposely) by the national media and even moderate to liberal activist groups.

I am registered as a Republican. I ran for state office in Nevada last year as a Republican. I usually vote for Republican candidates unless they are in conflict with my values. That said, I would vote for a pro-life Democrat before I would vote for a pro-abortion Republican. I have not sold my soul to a party.

I voted for George Bush twice, willingly, because the alternative (Gore, Kerry) was unacceptable. I think Bush has kept our country safe from attack after 9/11. I think he has vetoed or threatened veto on harmful legislation (hate crimes legislation, SCHIP) numerous times. I don’t think he is perfect, but I appreciate the effort he has made.

I hate that Bush refused to protect our southern border, that he expanded Medicare while at the same time complaining that Social Security was broken,  that he let Ted Kennedy write his first major education bill,  that he supported amnesty for illegals, and worst of all, that he handed the economy over to the control of the Dept. of the Treasury under Paulson. The TARP bailout is nothing more than socialism run amok, and it is compounding under an Obama administration.

In all of this, there is very little hope for true conservative voters, as our choices are slim. The political game of compromise and posturing is fraught with deception and pandering, and it is very difficult to find an honest candidate. With the hammer of the national liberal media, most conservatives choose to moderate some of their platform, or risk being marginalized and deemed irrelevant by those who control the news.

Case in point, Sarah Palin found it very difficult to communicate her views and policy aims in the national media, as the hysteria over her daughter’s pregnancy and her youngest son’s Down’s Syndrome grew to a fever pitch, not to mention the fact that most portrayed her as some sort of freak for having five kids in the first place. Having framed Palin as a freaky-hick-from-the-boondocks candidate, the mainstream media (aided and abetted by the Hollywood lifestyle rags) proceeded to marginalize anything conservative that came out of her mouth. No, Sarah Palin is not the immaculate conservative candidate, but she is a damn sight closer than anything we’ve been offered since Reagan.

Mike Huckabee likewise was dismissed until he threw out some pithy one-liners and won Iowa in a stunning upset. He stayed in the race probably too long, making his bid look even more Quijote-like than it should have, but he was fighting an uphill battle for publicity on a national scale. He was mostly conservative, and only squishy on a few areas (immigration, NEA, tax policy).

Romney was saying all the right things, as was Thompson, but Mitt had to overcome his past as a moderate in Massachusetts, and Fred took for granted that all conservatives would rally to his side. McCain never counted as a conservative, so there.

At the local level, conservatives are faced with a Republican (dis)organization that constantly pushes the need to be moderate, to compromise, to position, to posture and play the political game. That’s why I believe it is so hard to find qualified, capable candidates for most offices, because those folks don’t want to play political games. The bickering and in-fighting in most local political party organizations is sickening.

So, where can a conservative go to effect change? Where can we place our support and energy to keep the priceless heritage we’ve been given as Americans? I researched the Libertarian Party, but I was turned off by their support of things like legalizing prostitution and ignoring the danger gay marriage and abortion poses to our families and communities.

I looked at the Constitution Party, and while the stated platform looks good on paper, the individuals involved in leadership here in Nevada come across as scary, possibly racist, and militant. No other political parties are even viable in most races.

So, then, what? Where? Who?

The Tea Parties were the first glimmer of hope that conservatives have had in a really long time. I admit it was the first protest I have ever attended. We took the whole family. There was anger, to be sure, but also a sense of goodwill. These were mostly regular folks who had been pushed beyond their tolerance levels by the unprecedented level of government spending in response to the economic crisis.

As we left the event, we scanned the area for litter and could only find one chip bag on the ground, which my daughter gladly scooped up and ran to the trash. We left the rally area cleaner than we found it, which is rarely true of protest events. The same was reported nationwide. Almost no litter, no violence, and no arrests as over a million people came out on a single day to protest.

That is why the CNN reporter’s confrontation with the IL Tea Party was so jarring, it had no context. Susan Roesgen’s antagonistic attitude sank the interview before it ever started. She OBVIOUSLY was personally opposed to the protest, and could not even connect the dots between taxation and liberty. hello?

We fought the Revolutionary war over the issue of taxation and liberty, and anyone who doesn’t know that governmental taxation is an infringement on individual liberty needs to turn in their citizenship and go eat cheese in a European bistro somewhere in obscurity.

But I digress.

Until conservative voters can come together to support, finance, and volunteer for conservative candidates as tirelessly as the progressives do for their liberal candidates, we will continue to be marginalized. We need to become more visible, more vocal in our views. Write a letter to the editor, talk to the neighbors, donate to a solid conservative advocacy group. We cannot continue to keep to ourselves and just live life oblivious to the mounting threat to our way of life. There is too much at stake.

I wish we could hit that reset button that Hillary gave to Medvedev for our politcal party system.

I’m just sayin…….

[Tweet This] Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

Carrie Prejean. Perez Hilton. Beauty queen Vs. blogging queen. They are in a cat-fight that has sent ripples across the media-gorged plains and hills of America. As we have become addicted to the high drama of reality TV, many are now gripped by the high drama of the battling queens.

Just kidding. What a crappy ambush of the openly Christian contestant in the Miss USA pageant this week. For those of you who don’t know what I’m writing about, Miss CA was asked a question by a pageant judge, who happens to be a gay activist, about her opinion of gay marriage. Miss CA, Carrie Prejean, was honest and open about her beliefs, and even qualified with words like, “no offense” and, “in my opinion.”

(*disclaimer* I don’t follow, watch, or ‘get’ the beauty pageant circuit. I personally think that they are immodest and glorify the outward appearance far too much. Jesus is more concerned with the heart. But hey, to each their own. *disclaimer*)

There was an open response from the crowd, some smattering of boos and even more cheers for her response. She spoke gracefully, and even came across as sincere and humble. There was no animosity or arrogance in her response, but straight honesty. And that, in the progressive lefty-land of gay activists, is unforgivable. Having an opinion that contradicts their own, or a belief that they don’t share is a cardinal sin.

There is no agreement to disagree agreeably, no, there is only vilification and smear. Hilton’s youtube rant was horribly insulting and cruel. This young lady hasn’t even come close to being as rude and offensive as this creep who was in a position to ‘judge’ her. As someone in a position of some influence over the outcome of the pageant, his conduct and subsequent response was ridiculous. He stated that she should have kept her politics out of the pageant, after HE was the one who submitted a POLITICAL question!! Hello?

This PC gestapo move was totally unbecoming the promoters of the pageant itself, to allow themselves to be used by an activist to promote his own agenda. Then to have the MissCA organization come out against the contestant who was honest and NOT condemn the judge who was provocative shows that politics riddles their organization. Now all the pundits and media figures are scrambling to show their ’sensitivity’ and politically-correct ‘open-mindedness’ by siding with the drama queen over the beauty queen.

As an aside, a MAJORITY of CA voters agree with the beauty queen, so if you look at it logically, she truly represented the majority of the people in her state.

Now Perez Hilton has gotten teen singing sensation Mylie Cyrus to voice support for gay marriage, or at least ‘tweet’ her support for it. In an exchange on their twitter accounts, Cyrus told Hilton regarding Miss CA’s statement: “ya thats lame! gods greatest commandment is to love. and judging is not loving. thats why christians have such a bad rep. <3 u” and in response to Heidi Montag’s (of the Hills) open support of gay marriage: “i second that!!! wow heidi is smart!!! shes amazing : )“

Both Cyrus and Montag claim to be committed Christians and disapprove of other Christians making ‘judgments’ like Carrie Prejean did. Christians have a bad rep? Wow, that’s terrible! Jesus would be so disappointed! I mean, when He said, “Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because of your allegiance to me.” Matthew 24:9 and, “When the world hates you, remember it hated me before it hated you.” John 15:18 He OBVIOUSLY was worried about our Christian rep! (for those of you who are slow on the uptake, that was sarcasm)

So to those of you who are perpetually worried about world opinion and popularity, this Christ-follower thing is not for you. The gospel of Jesus Christ is an offense, a stumbling block to those who don’t receive it. To be told that you have offended the holiness of God and that you need a Savior (that would be Jesus) to make nice between you and God. MOST people will never accept that truth, Jesus even said so. (Matthew 7:13,14) So, accepting that fact, it should be the LAST concern of any Christian whether we have a bad rep or not. We have the freedom to be honest and sincere, regardless of public opinion.

That being said, you don’t need to be a Christian to believe that same-sex marriage is wrong. The right of each of us to hold and express our views, beliefs, and opinions, especially when ASKED is guaranteed by the Constitution. To have a whole movement of activists that scream and whine and just gets vile when someone disagrees with them publicly  is truly sad. I see more hate from Perez Hilton than I do from Carrie Prejean in this smackdown.

My vote for the winning queen is for MissCA. Now, to all the news outlets covering this dustup, can we stop showing the swimsuit footage incessantly? I’m just sayin….

[Tweet This] Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

The debate on same-sex marriage has become increasingly pitched and emotional. With the passing of Prop 8 last year in California, to the courts in Iowa highjacking the issue from the people, several different arguments and paths are being pursued relentlessly.

The failure of conservatives and even W. to press for marriage protections when they had the votes in congress will haunt this issue for years to come. The willingness of our current President and the Democrats who control the federal legislature to force acceptance of gay marriage on our nation all but guarantees a defeat for the defenders of traditional marriage.

The sad truth is that a majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage. Most of us don’t mind if you want to be gay, go be gay, just don’t force me to accept it as the right way to live. Don’t take an institution that was created by God and demand that it be conformed to suit you. Don’t demand that schools teach my kids to experiment with alternative lifestyles.

Don’t use hate-crimes legislation to intimidate and silence your critics. If you support a culture of ‘love’ then persuade on the merit of your position, not with blackmail and threats. Many major American corporations have been shaken down by the ‘diversity’ mafia. These corporations have been goaded into offering same-sex benefits to their employees or donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to homosexual organizations.

Oh, and by the way, the more hate-crimes laws that pass, the less freedom we have to speak our mind. In the state of Colorado, the legislature and the governor passed a bill that criminalizes speaking negatively of the homosexual lifestyles outside the walls of the church. People who pass out literature that criticizes gay living could be found in violation of the law and subject to prosecution and fines. That means that if you give someone a BIBLE in CO, and you aren’t on church grounds, you are a criminal.  Hello?

HR 1913 was just introduced last week in the US House of Representatives. It is the same hate-crimes legislation that was passed in 2007 and threatened with a veto by W. Obama has already said he would sign it. When you attach penalties to crimes for the thoughts and intentions behind them, you are one small step away from outlawing opinions, or, more dangerously, convictions of conscience. It is already illegal to commit a crime against another person, so adding a layer of punishment for crimes against special groups in no way makes us a freer or safer nation. It actually creates a special type of protection not given to the rest of us and opens the door for “what the definition of ‘is’, is” lawyers to find a way to use these laws to outlaw speaking about our beliefs against the gay lifestyle.

I am not ok with the laws in California giving men the ‘right’ to us the ladies’ restroom because they ‘feel’ feminine on a particular day. My opposition to such a law could bring about prosecution or civil court action if I were to verbalize or agitate too publicly. How? Hate speech. By standing for what I believe in, I would be dubbed a ‘hater.’ By expressing my beliefs, it could be claimed that I was creating an atmosphere of intimidation causing others to fear harm or attack. Regardless of how lovingly I may share my opposition, the law hinges on how others perceive the message.

So what’s the big deal? How will same-sex marriage affect heterosexuals? Who really cares, why don’t you live and let live?

Over and over again, research has determined that there are several factors to child-rearing that are immutable. Children with a mother and a father in the home are more secure and balanced, do better in school and avoid trouble with the law to a greater degree. The differences between men and women are complimentary, not just physically, but emotionally and spiritually. That’s why the Judeo-Christian faith believes that it takes a husband and a wife to more appropriately reflect the image of God. (Genesis 1:27

Once believing that marriage is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples has been legally defined as a bigoted position, millions of people of faith will be disenfranchised. Not having the protections of the First Amendment to speak and practice our faith, what we believe will become criminal. Harassment by lawsuit and frivolous complaints is unavoidable.

Churches who will not marry same-sex couples can be sued for prejudice. Business-owners who object to the lifestyle can be taken to court for ‘discrimination,’ like Elaine Photography was in New Mexico last year. This push for the public acceptance of a lifestyle that many believe is an affront to God necessarily forces a confrontation between the law and people of faith.

The demand that marriage be changed to suit them is the most galling position of those who promote gay marriage. Since it’s creation, marriage has been between a man and a woman, two opposites who blend into ‘one, body, soul, and spirit’ and thereby give a miniature picture of the nature of God. Gays who demand what is not theirs are not acting in love, and it is not hateful to want to preserve something as precious as marriage.

Every time the public at large is allowed to vote on the issue, traditional marriage has been upheld and protected. Activists have had to shop for liberal, progressive courts and legislatures to force their designs on society. The type of animosity the same-sex marriage movement has shown for people of faith only shows how ugly things will be when they wield the force of law. Just ask eHarmony.

I’m trying to remember the last time a church or a Christian sued someone for being gay…… Oh, right, it hasn’t happened! But, the other way around? Dozens of times, and increasingly with every new hate crimes legislation that passes, in North America and in Europe. Get ready kids, the dam is about to burst if gay marriage is legalized. Hope you are fully insured, or ready to deny your faith, because you can’t keep your beliefs in this brave, new world of ‘tolerance.’

Constitutional? Only when all men are created equal…… but some are more ‘equal’ than others….

[Tweet This] Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post

It seems there is no end in sight. The Obama Administration is pressing forward its progressive agenda full-steam ahead. It seems winning the Presidency gives you the ability to force your agenda onto the American public regardless of the cost or public resistance. It doesn’t hurt when your party owns both houses of congress, either. I wish someone had impressed that upon George W. back in 2001 & 2002.

It also doesn’t hurt that most people are so distracted by the economic meltdown that it is hard to cut through all the noise and really grasp what is being proposed. It’s almost as if the Administration is throwing everything it has in mind onto the wall to see which ones will stick. The bad news for Americans is that more of it will stick than ever should.

From stem cells to vast new powers for the Treasury Department,(thanks to W)  through the proposed first national budget, and even to the G.I.V.E. act, there is a sweeping grab for power underway in the capitol. Most Americans can only keep up with one or two, which means the rest will slide through without much debate. There will be few Americans who grasp that the ruling this week that the EPA just gave regarding greenhouse gases will ruin our energy industry and prices for electricity will skyrocket.

Henry Waxman is already planning hearings and a full-court press for 20% reduction in emissions by 2020. That’s only scary if you understand that this administration has classified CARBON DIOXIDE as a pollutant! What comes out of your lungs after taking a breath is pollution! Never mind that plants NEED carbon dioxide in order to grow and that photosynthesis has a natural output of oxygen, which WE need to breathe. No, now what you do by being alive is pollution, and you are a polluter. Yes, you!

Now, the Mexican drug war is being used as an excuse to restrict guns in America instead of the necessary step of completely controlling our border. We will never be successful in regulating illicit drugs until we control our national borders. The 90% statistic is a ruse, and only a partial truth. The military-grade weapons that make up the bulk of the Narco-terrorist’s arsenal DOES NOT come from the US. 

When the minority party protests and tries to bring to light what is going on on Washington, Democrats sneer about winning the election, and become dismissive of all the ‘chattering classes.’ Or the White House press secretary will lie about the President being ‘unaware’ of all the Tea Party events that are taking place around the nation. The pace set by this White House is frightening, and if it continues, even 2010 elections may be too late to slow the swing to the left.

The frustration that is growing among the neighborhoods and in communities across America is falling on deaf ears in Washington. Even many who supported Obama’s bid for the Presidency have expressed some form of buyer’s remorse over the course of his decisions. Now that America can see past the ‘historic nature’ of an Obama win, we are beginning to see the cost of his policies and beliefs settling in.

This country was made great by its capitalistic free-market system coupled with its morality, rooted in deep faith systems that framed the whole American Experiment. Every aspect of American greatness is being called into question. All the wisdom of our Founders and our exceptional leaders over the past 200+ years is being spun into meaningless platitudes, devoid of principles.

From economics, to education, foreign policy, environmental issues, and beyond. Barak Obama is remaking our great nation into something unrecognizable. Not what most of us want, and hopefully, not what most Americans will tolerate. Wake up, America, the Tea Party movement can’t be the end of it, it must be only the beginning. Otherwise, the United States of America will pass onto the ash heap of history alongside the Soviet Union we defeated.

Dramatic? yes. Prophetic? God, I hope not!

[Tweet This] Plurk This Post Buzz This Post Delicious Digg This Post Ping This Post Reddit Stumble This Post